Austin: Libertarian BLM Protester Shot Dead

[jmdrake]

A lawyer who does not even consider the concurrence which is required between a mental state and an action before criminal liability is assigned. Yikes.

It's funny to watch ignorant people trying to say what lawyers should think. And to be fair I've seen it as much from the left as I have from the right. For instance there was an ignorant leftist who tried to shame me for saying that the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict was correct. So the more people like you try to criticize me, the more I realize I'm on the right track. Thank you.

 

[jmdrake]

That proves it was a political trial.

25 years for a self defense shooting...yeah right.

Some thug gangbanger wouldn't get half that for blowing away a liquor store clerk.

I know literally nothing about this case but 25 years does seem excessive.

Quick Google search proves that false.

https://www.onlineathens.com/story/...store-clerks-death-to-be-executed/1981545007/

Man convicted in Georgia store clerk's death to be executed
Kate Brumback, Associated Press

FILE - Jimmy Fletcher Meders was sentenced to death in April 1989 in Glynn County for the robbery and murder of a convenience store clerk. Don Anderson, 47, was shot twice as he lay on the floor after being robbed of the night of Oct. 14, 1987.
ATLANTA | A Georgia man convicted of killing a convenience store clerk more than 30 years ago is set to be executed in January.

Jimmy Fletcher Meders, 58, is scheduled to be put to death Jan. 16 at the state prison in Jackson, according to news releases from state Attorney General Chris Carr and Department of Corrections Commissioner Timothy Ward. Meders was convicted of murder and other charges in the October 1987 shooting death of Don Anderson at a convenience store in coastal Glynn County.​

https://www.enidnews.com/news/local...cle_02a25f56-eb7f-11ed-9c9c-df5d12e729c7.html

Enid man sentenced to life without parole in store clerk's 2022 killing

ENID, Okla. — One of the three people charged last year in connection with the shooting death of an Enid man at a local convenience store pleaded guilty and was sentenced Friday morning, May 5, 2023.

Jose Juan Zamarron, 19, appeared before Associate District Judge Brian Lovell and waived his preliminary hearing to enter into a guilty plea on two of the four initial counts he was facing related to the death of 34-year-old Kristopher Osborn.

Zamarron received a life sentence with Oklahoma Department of Corrections, without the possibility of parole, on one count of first-degree murder; and five years in prison, to run concurrently, on one count of assault while masked.
​

 

[TheTexan]

Quick Google search proves that false.

https://www.onlineathens.com/story/...store-clerks-death-to-be-executed/1981545007/

Man convicted in Georgia store clerk's death to be executed
Kate Brumback, Associated Press

FILE - Jimmy Fletcher Meders was sentenced to death in April 1989 in Glynn County for the robbery and murder of a convenience store clerk. Don Anderson, 47, was shot twice as he lay on the floor after being robbed of the night of Oct. 14, 1987.
ATLANTA | A Georgia man convicted of killing a convenience store clerk more than 30 years ago is set to be executed in January.

Jimmy Fletcher Meders, 58, is scheduled to be put to death Jan. 16 at the state prison in Jackson, according to news releases from state Attorney General Chris Carr and Department of Corrections Commissioner Timothy Ward. Meders was convicted of murder and other charges in the October 1987 shooting death of Don Anderson at a convenience store in coastal Glynn County.​

https://www.enidnews.com/news/local...cle_02a25f56-eb7f-11ed-9c9c-df5d12e729c7.html

Enid man sentenced to life without parole in store clerk's 2022 killing

ENID, Okla. — One of the three people charged last year in connection with the shooting death of an Enid man at a local convenience store pleaded guilty and was sentenced Friday morning, May 5, 2023.

Jose Juan Zamarron, 19, appeared before Associate District Judge Brian Lovell and waived his preliminary hearing to enter into a guilty plea on two of the four initial counts he was facing related to the death of 34-year-old Kristopher Osborn.

Zamarron received a life sentence with Oklahoma Department of Corrections, without the possibility of parole, on one count of first-degree murder; and five years in prison, to run concurrently, on one count of assault while masked.
​

Yea but you're comparing apples and oranges.

 

[ClaytonB]

So, a generic response to the formulas that keeps being trotted out in this thread:

"If Perry had been a left-winger, you would not support his right to self-defense."

"Foster was a libertarian, so you should think twice about supporting Perry."

Both of these formulas are absurd and inherently invalid. The purpose of a law court is not to analyze the political loyalties of the parties and "balance the political equation." The political views of both Foster and Perry are completely irrelevant. The facts in the case simply do not support a murder conviction of Perry. The charges, trial, conviction and sentencing of Perry are all transparently politically-motivated. That is the only relevant political consideration in this case! Foster's political views are irrelevant, Perry's political views are irrelevant, but the political views of the corrupt judicial system which is crucifying Perry for political reasons are absolutely relevant.

Perry is being made an example to warn off anyone who imagines that they can defend themselves from Antifa thugs. If you find yourself surrounded by Antifa thugs, your best bet is to just lay down and quietly accept whatever happens next. That is the real message and purpose of Perry's trial. You can keep pushing this idea that Perry's political views or Foster's political views are somehow relevant to whether Perry's actions were self-defense but the simple fact is, it's irrelevant!

 

[TheTexan]

Make the person a radical leftist that said on social media days before hand "I could kill one of those open carry right wingers and get away with it." Because that's exactly what Daniel Perry did.

These things?

He's pretty obviously joking.

And these messages were private - how did the prosecution get this evidence and how was it admissible?

 

[ClaytonB]

These things?

He's pretty obviously joking.

Bingo.

And these messages were private - how did the prosecution get this evidence and how was it admissible?

The moment you touch a keyboard or a smartphone, the Fourth Amendment magically ceases to exist. Didn't you know?

 

[TheTexan]

I'm trying to catch up on this case, but it seems like it hinges entirely on the fact that he's made off-color remarks privately online.

I don't care who you are, left wing or right wing, that should never be enough to convict a murder charge.

 

[TheTexan]

I would pardon this dude on the simple fact that the judge had no problem admitting private correspondence of Daniel Perry but would not allow any evidence that showed Garrett Foster being aggressive to vehicles on earlier occassions

 

[jmdrake]

These things?

He's pretty obviously joking.

Not a funny joke.

And these messages were private - how did the prosecution get this evidence and how was it admissible?

Have you been living under a rock for the past 50 years? "Private" messages have been admissible in court even before the internet existed. All the prosecution needs is a search warrant supported by probable cause and your handwritten letters to you lover about how you'd like to kill your wife for the insurance money and run of with your new woman to Costa Rica is 100% admissible. And good luck convincing a jury that you were just joking.

 

[jmdrake]

I'm trying to catch up on this case, but it seems like it hinges entirely on the fact that he's made off-color remarks privately online.

I don't care who you are, left wing or right wing, that should never be enough to convict a murder charge.

By itself it wasn't enough. Combined with him making an illegal turn and almost running over protesters, and the one image of Garrett Foster shows his gun was pointed to the ground and you have a rather weak self defense argument. But hey, maybe someone should have just shot Kyle Rittenhouse before Kyle shot someone and just said "I felt threatened! The gun was pointed at me! Self defense!" even if that wasn't the case.

 

[TheTexan]

But hey, maybe someone should have just shot Kyle Rittenhouse before Kyle shot someone and just said "I felt threatened! The gun was pointed at me! Self defense!" even if that wasn't the case.

Honestly, if that did happen, I would expect a non-guilty verdict (or lack of a trial completely), if there was no hard evidence to contradict his statement.

No hard evidence to contradict? No conviction... is the way it should be...

 

[TheTexan]

Not a funny joke.

Whether it's funny or not is not relevant.

Have you been living under a rock for the past 50 years? "Private" messages have been admissible in court even before the internet existed. All the prosecution needs is a search warrant supported by probable cause and

What was the probable cause in this case?

your handwritten letters to you lover about how you'd like to kill your wife for the insurance money and run of with your new woman to Costa Rica is 100% admissible. And good luck convincing a jury that you were just joking.

Pretty much every husband or wife has joked about that at some point.

 

[jmdrake]

Yea but you're comparing apples and oranges.

Hard to tell when your just being sarcastic, but [MENTION=3169]Anti Federalist[/MENTION] specifically argued about a gang banger getting off after killing a convenience store clerk. Jose Juan Zamarron fits the definition of a gang banger because hit committed the robbery with two other people.

Two other people were charged in connection with Osborn’s death. James Parker, 22, and 19-year-old Alejandro Ahumada each is facing one count of first-degree murder and one count of robbery with a dangerous weapon.​

 

[jmdrake]

Whether it's funny or not is not relevant.

Yeah it is.

What was the probable cause in this case?

Any time one person has admitted to killing another person, even if he claims self defense, there is automatically probable cause.

Pretty much every husband or wife has joked about that at some point.

I never did. That said, as long as nobody ends up killed the joke can just be a joke. The moment a spouse goes missing or is found dead with foul play suspected, the first thing that happens is police look to see if the spouse who's still living ever said anything, even in jest, about killing the other spouse.

 

[jmdrake]

Honestly, if that did happen, I would expect a non-guilty verdict (or lack of a trial completely), if there was no hard evidence to contradict his statement.

No hard evidence to contradict? No conviction... is the way it should be...

Photographic evidence contradicted Daniel Perry's claim that the rifle was pointed at him. So did multiple witness evidence. Missing from evidence was Daniel Perry's statement under oath because he decided not to testify.

 

[TheTexan]

By itself it wasn't enough. Combined with him making an illegal turn and almost running over protesters, and the one image of Garrett Foster shows his gun was pointed to the ground and you have a rather weak self defense argument.

So the prosecution had:

1) Jokes made online
2) An "illegal turn in the presence of protestors",
3) A still image of Garrett where he wasnt raising a weapon

The defense had:
1) Admissions from Garrett that the AK-47 was meant to intimidate (inadmissible)
2) Video of Garrett and others being aggressive towards vehicles on prior occasions (inadmissible)
3) The initial police report saying it was a justified self defense (inadmissible)

How exactly does that add up to a 25 year murder conviction?

 

[tod evans]

Make the person a radical leftist that said on social media days before hand "I could kill one of those open carry right wingers and get away with it." Because that's exactly what Daniel Perry did.

As I said earlier, if the shooter was able to articulate a reason for shooting and wasn't a government employee I'm going to probably side with the shooter.

Remember I'm the guy who's been saying for years that "He needed shooting." is an honest defense for the average Joe.

 

[TheTexan]

Photographic evidence contradicted Daniel Perry's claim that the rifle was pointed at him. So did multiple witness evidence. Missing from evidence was Daniel Perry's statement under oath because he decided not to testify.

Witness testimony in a case like this should hold limited weight at best. A) They have clear bias, and B) It happened very quickly

(Recall for example how many people lied during the Kyle Rittenhouse case. If it hadn't been captured on video Kyle would have likely been screwed.)

 

[jmdrake]

Witness testimony in a case like this should hold limited weight at best. A) They have clear bias, and B) It happened very quickly

(Recall for example how many people lied during the Kyle Rittenhouse case. If it hadn't been captured on video Kyle would have likely been screwed.)

Note that I said earlier in this thread if you're rile carrying it might be a good idea to wear a body cam. That said, in this case the only photo submitted shows Garrett Foster was pointing his rifle at the ground. Of course the 'expert witness" hired by Daniel Perry's defense team said he that position was dangerous and was a slight movement away from justifying a police shooting. That cop might have shot Rittenhouse.

 

[TheTexan]

Yeah it is.

Well in that case, the jokes were funny.

Any time one person has admitted to killing another person, even if he claims self defense, there is automatically probable cause.

And do you think that's fine? If you dig enough into private correspondence of anybody, you can find damning evidence of anything. How much digging did they do into Garrett's private correspondence?

Even if this is the legal status quo, that they can subpoena anything and everything just because you have a murder charge... it doesn't make it OK. 4th amendment was intended to prevent this kind of overreach.

I never did. That said, as long as nobody ends up killed the joke can just be a joke. The moment a spouse goes missing or is found dead with foul play suspected, the first thing that happens is police look to see if the spouse who's still living ever said anything, even in jest, about killing the other spouse.

That doesn't mean they should have open access to any and all private correspondence to do a fishing expedition for such material.