Austin: Libertarian BLM Protester Shot Dead

[jmdrake]

Executed a warrant for my cell phone on what probable cause?

Eyewitness testimony that you committed a rape.

Again, this whole "you are on trial and therefore everything you have ever said online is fair game to be freely subpoenaed" is unconstitutional no matter how much you want to claim "its always been that way". It did not used to be that way!!!

The phone being carried of the person who admittedly killed someone at the time the killing happened is subject to being searched under the 4th amendment.

Just because the information exists and is available from a device in his pocket does not mean that information should automatically be available to the prosecution.

Dude, even his attorney's, based on the link you gave, aren't arguing those text messages shouldn't have been admitted. And you haven't given a legitimate argument as to their inadmissibility. Just like Susan Smith, those text messages go to motive. In fact they are stronger evidence of motive than the Susan Smith letters. She just said she wanted to run off with her lover. He said he wanted to kill people he thought were antisemites. He might have gunned down half of this forum.

 

[ClaytonB]

What ClaytonB is ignoring is the defenders of Daniel Perry tried to use the photo to show Foster was pointing the gun at Perry. At that moment in time he wasn't.

The burden is not on the defense to prove that Foster was pointing the gun at Perry. A single frame showing Foster with the rifle at anything above low position (pointed at the ground) is enough to prove Perry was not lying (meaning, his self-defense claim stands). The prosecution has to jump a higher hurdle than the defense, to get conviction, due to presumption of innocence.

just because evidence isn't ironclad doesn't mean it's not evidence

Obviously. But the evidence must demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecution's claim -- that Perry is lying about Foster raising or attempting to raise his rifle -- is false and, therefore, so is his claim of self-defense.

a lot of people you consider patriots deserve to be shot.

This is idiotic reasoning and no "lawyer" would consider it to be sound. The political "implications" are irrelevant to the case! Either Perry is lying, and he simply murdered Foster where he was standing, or not. Perry claims he acted in self-defense. The presumption of innocence means that the burden is on the prosecution to prove Perry's claim false, or Perry walks. This is Law 101 stuff that anybody knows, and the Internet "lawyer" here doesn't even understand that....

 

[TheTexan]

What ClaytonB is ignoring is the defenders of Daniel Perry tried to use the photo to show Foster was pointing the gun at Perry. At that moment in time he wasn't. What you non lawyers are missing (and showing why you shouldn't try to be lawyers) is that just because evidence isn't ironclad doesn't mean it's not evidence or inadmissible or whatever other nonsense you're trying to say. You have have video evidence that doesn't show every second of every encounter. (Usually it doesn't). The cop (and you usually are against cops) held he rifle exactly the same way Foster was holding his rifle in that photo and claimed that justified Foster getting shot. Well...under those circumstance a lot of people you consider patriots deserve to be shot.

I never said it shouldn't be admissible. I just said it has literally 0 value in countering the defendant's claims that at some point (presumably after the photograph was taken), that the rifle was indeed raised.

Do they just let anyone become lawyers these days?

 

[jmdrake]

I never said it shouldn't be admissible. I just said it has literally 0 value in countering the defendant's claims that at some point (presumably after the photograph was taken), that the rifle was indeed raised.

Do they just let anyone become lawyers these days?

They don't allow you which is probably a good thing. But I tell you what has literally 0 value. All of the evidence that was not admitted of other times protesters blocked cars when none of those witnesses ever said a gun was pointed at them. But apparently you think that's important for some reason.

 

[TheTexan]

The phone being carried of the person who admittedly killed someone at the time the killing happened is subject to being searched under the 4th amendment.

If by "searching the phone", you mean, taking it apart and physically looking inside, then yes, you are correct.

Dude, even his attorney's, based on the link you gave, aren't arguing those text messages shouldn't have been admitted.

It's probably a lost cause to argue such a thing. The 4th amendment has been trampled, why would anyone start to care about it now.

And you haven't given a legitimate argument as to their inadmissibility.

If I understand your argument correctly, there is a device in his pocket that has access to the internet, so therefore anything on the internet should be admissible.

Is that accurate? Feel free to clarify/correct my understanding of your position.

Just like Susan Smith, those text messages go to motive. In fact they are stronger evidence of motive than the Susan Smith letters. She just said she wanted to run off with her lover. He said he wanted to kill people he thought were antisemites. He might have gunned down half of this forum.

The Susan Smith letters should have 0 weight in determining her guilt. Either they have the evidence they need to convict her, or they don't. The letters shouldn't even come into play because nothing in those letters indicate any kind of criminal act. You can "infer" motive from those letters all day long but such inferences should not have any kind of evidentiary value.

I'm not saying the Susan letters should be inadmissible - if they were acquired in a proper way - but as a juror they should have 0 evidentiary value. Other people such as you may have other opinions but those opinions such as yours are simply wrong lol

 

[TheTexan]

They don't allow you which is probably a good thing. But I tell you what has literally 0 value.

I might just go get a law degree online right now just to spite you

I would ace that shit so easy FYI

All of the evidence that was not admitted of other times protesters blocked cars when none of those witnesses ever said a gun was pointed at them. But apparently you think that's important for some reason.

Huh?

Are you referring to the link below?

https://www.statesman.com/story/new...-new-trial-garrett-foster-murder/70104891007/

Speak english please what are you trying to say

 

[jmdrake]

If by "searching the phone", you mean, taking it apart and physically looking inside, then yes, you are correct.

Nope. I mean reading through your text messages or in the case of Zimmerman looking at your location data. All of that can be searched under a search warrant supported by probable cause and is admissible as evidence. Again that helped Zimmerman walk after killing Trayvon Martin. Trayvon Martin's social media posts were also used in Zimmerman's favor.

It's probably a lost cause to argue such a thing. The 4th amendment has been trampled, why would anyone start to care about it now.

Except in this example it wasn't. Refresher for you on the 4th amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons , houses , papers , and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.​

So your "papers"can be searched if there is a warrant based on probable cause. You kill someone and claim self defense, your "papers" which might negate that defense are searchable. It matters not that these papers are now electronic.

If I understand your argument correctly, there is a device in his pocket that has access to the internet, so therefore anything on the internet should be admissible.

Re-read the 4th amendment please.

Is that accurate? Feel free to clarify/correct my understanding of your position.

With a warrant supported by probable cause your papers are subject to search. Not just your physical phone. Now, say if the search turned up something not relevant. Child porn for instance. That would not be admissible to negate Daniel Perry's claim of self defense. Letters (which fall under the category of papers) were the 18th century equivalent of text messages. And under a warrant supported by probable cause those letters were searchable and relevant information found in them were admissible.

The Susan Smith letters should have 0 weight in determining her guilt. Either they have the evidence they need to convict her, or they don't. The letters shouldn't even come into play because nothing in those letters indicate any kind of criminal act. You can "infer" motive from those letters all day long but such inferences should not have any kind of evidentiary value.

She ultimately confessed. But they were used to extract her confession.

I'm not saying the Susan letters should be inadmissible - if they were acquired in a proper way - but as a juror they should have 0 evidentiary value. Other people such as you may have other opinions but those opinions such as yours are simply wrong lol

You are certainly entitled to your wrong opinion.

 

[jmdrake]

I might just go get a law degree online right now just to spite you

I would ace that $#@! so easy FYI

Please do. I might even through you some clients I don't like.

Huh?

Are you referring to the link below?

https://www.statesman.com/story/new...-new-trial-garrett-foster-murder/70104891007/

Speak english please what are you trying to say

Oh. I forgot. You're from Texas. You don't speak English. You speak Texan.

i'll explain it again. Perry's lawyers are complaining that they didn't get to put in statements by witnesses that Foster and his buddies blocked other drivers. But none of those other drivers ever said Foster pointed a gun at them. So that's got nothing to do with whether Foster pointed a gun at Perry. Entiendo?

 

[TheTexan]

Nope. I mean reading through your text messages or in the case of Zimmerman looking at your location data. All of that can be searched under a search warrant supported by probable cause and is admissible as evidence. Again that helped Zimmerman walk after killing Trayvon Martin. Trayvon Martin's social media posts were also used in Zimmerman's favor.



Except in this example it wasn't. Refresher for you on the 4th amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons , houses , papers , and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.​

So your "papers"can be searched if there is a warrant based on probable cause. You kill someone and claim self defense, your "papers" which might negate that defense are searchable. It matters not that these papers are now electronic.

It does matter that these papers are now electronic.

It used to be that your correspondence was stored in a drawer in a desk in your study. These would typically be off limits in a murder trial unless there was specific probable cause to subpoena them.

Now, every correspondence you have ever made is in your pocket. And all of it is subpoenaed.

I'm not sure why this difference is hard for you to understand?

 

[TheTexan]

Oh. I forgot. You're from Texas. You don't speak English. You speak Texan.

i'll explain it again. Perry's lawyers are complaining that they didn't get to put in statements by witnesses that Foster and his buddies blocked other drivers. But none of those other drivers ever said Foster pointed a gun at them. So that's got nothing to do with whether Foster pointed a gun at Perry.

Why does it matter whether or not Foster ever pointed a gun at them? If the behavior was aggressive, and possibly criminal, it's relevant.

It's especially relevant because the prosecution's argument is that Daniel Perry was the instigator. If Foster could be shown as the instigator of previous incidences, its absolutely relevant. (Regardless of whether or not he pointed or even was carrying a weapon)

Entiendo?

It's shocking how much "Texan" resembles "English".

 

[jmdrake]

Why does it matter whether or not Foster ever pointed a gun at them?

Because Perry's defense depended on Foster pointing a gun at him.

 

[TheTexan]

Because Perry's defense depended on Foster pointing a gun at him.

And the prosecution depended on Perry being the instigator.

The evidence that Perry wanted to submit would have shown a history of Garrett being the instigator.

Which is relevant, to me as a juror, and very likely other jurors would have found this relevant.

If the judge is going to include off-color jokes into trial, then he shouldn't be arbitrarily strict on allowing evidence that supports the defense.

There was also:

The court also did not allow defense attorneys to present homicide detective Joe Fugitt's report that concluded the fatal shooting was justifiable homicide, the motion said.

 

[jmdrake]

It does matter that these papers are now electronic.

It used to be that your correspondence was stored in a drawer in a desk in your study. These would typically be off limits in a murder trial unless there was specific probable cause to subpoena them.

Now, every correspondence you have ever made is in your pocket. And all of it is subpoenaed.

And there was specific probable cause to subpoena Daniel Perry's text messages. These weren't text messages from 2008 that were brought into trial. There was text messages relevant to the time frame and subject matter. The idea that "Oh it's electronic so there can be zero discovery" is as stupid as the idea that "Oh the founding fathers never imagined semi automatic weapons." In 1792, if there was probable cause that you committed a murder, thee police could swear out a warrant based on that probable cause and look through those papers in that locked drawer. You or your attorney could then argue that certain papers should not be admitted because they weren't relevant. You wouldn't be able to argue that the locked drawer couldn't be searched just because it likely contained a mix of relevant and non-relevant letters.

I'm not sure why this difference is hard for you to understand?

I'm not the one with the lack of understanding here.

 

[jmdrake]

And the prosecution depended on Perry being the instigator.

The evidence that Perry wanted to submit would have shown a history of Garrett being the instigator.

Which is relevant, to me as a juror, and very likely other jurors would have found this relevant.

If the judge is going to include off-color jokes into trial, then he shouldn't be arbitrarily strict on allowing evidence that supports the defense.

There was also:

It's undisputed that after Perry made the illegal wrong turn and moved towards the crowd that the crowd swarmed his car. That the crowd did the exact same thing other times did not enhance Perry's defense. Perry's defense rested on whether or not a Foster pointed his gun at Perry. The seminal case on this is Old Chief vs United States. If a particular fact has already been stipulated as true (in this case that the crowd in question would swarm cars that made illegal turns towards them) then piling on additional evidence to what's already been established as true is inadmissible.

 

[TheTexan]

And there was specific probable cause to subpoena Daniel Perry's text messages. These weren't text messages from 2008 that were brought into trial. There was text messages relevant to the time frame and subject matter. The idea that "Oh it's electronic so there can be zero discovery" is as stupid as the idea that "Oh the founding fathers never imagined semi automatic weapons." In 1792, if there was probable cause that you committed a murder, thee police could swear out a warrant based on that probable cause and look through those papers in that locked drawer. You or your attorney could then argue that certain papers should not be admitted because they weren't relevant. You wouldn't be able to argue that the locked drawer couldn't be searched just because it likely contained a mix of relevant and non-relevant letters.



I'm not the one with the lack of understanding here.

See post below:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...er-Shot-Dead&p=7171679&viewfull=1#post7171679

If you can honestly tell me with a straight face that a murder trial in the 1700's would - as a standard practice - involve raiding the acquaintances homes to get letters sent by the defendant and sift through them to determine which ones are relevant,

then sure OK.

But if not, then at the very minimum, you have to admit that things have changed from a privacy standpoint.

There was text messages relevant to the time frame and subject matter.

The fact that you think they are relevant is not really material to the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment does not say its ok to search without probable cause, "as long as you find something that is relevant"

 

[TheTexan]

It's undisputed that after Perry made the illegal wrong turn and moved towards the crowd that the crowd swarmed his car. That the crowd did the exact same thing other times did not enhance Perry's defense. Perry's defense rested on whether or not a Foster pointed his gun at Perry. The seminal case on this is Old Chief vs United States. If a particular fact has already been stipulated as true (in this case that the crowd in question would swarm cars that made illegal turns towards them) then piling on additional evidence to what's already been established as true is inadmissible.

Garrett being recorded as intentionally intimidating drivers, is relevant regardless of any "illegal turn".

And not that its relevant at all - because it isnt - but who exactly stipulated this fact that an illegal turn automatically means that your car is gonna get swarmed? Is that an accepted fact? Is that like the 3rd rule of autodynamics? "Thou who doth make illegal turn shall get swarmed" ? I was not aware that was a stipulated fact that had been accepted as true... again... not seeing the relevance but just wtf lol

 

[jmdrake]

See post below:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...er-Shot-Dead&p=7171679&viewfull=1#post7171679

If you can honestly tell me with a straight face that a murder trial in the 1700's would - as a standard practice - involve raiding the acquaintances homes to get letters sent by the defendant and sift through them to determine which ones are relevant,

So your argument is that Daniel Perry's messages came from his friend's phone as opposed to his phone? As for messages Daniel posted on Facebook, unless they were DM's those aren't even considered private. Are you suggesting that in the 1700s if someone tacked documents on the town bulletin board, those public documents would somehow be inadmissible? For the record I haven't seen documentation showing exactly where all of the messages and voicemails came from, but at least some came from his phone.

https://www.kxan.com/news/crime/dan...ns-of-messages-about-guns-killing-protesters/

AUSTIN (KXAN) — A 76-page document unsealed Thursday contains a trove of social media posts, texts and search history for Daniel Perry, who was convicted of killing Black Lives Matter protester Garrett Foster in 2020.

The document was not used during his trial, but they point to evidence the State intends to introduce during the punishment phase. A judge, not a jury, will decide Perry’s sentence, which was a decision the defense made. A date has not yet been set for that step in the legal process.
.
.
.
The documents include a voicemail from a woman identifying herself as his mother, telling Perry to stop posting “bad things” on Facebook “because it’s really hurting people’s feelings and it’s wrong.” A text from a contact saved in Perry’s phone as “Dad” shared a similar sentiment.

While some Facebook messages had been introduced at trial — including messages where Perry discussed a shooting between a driver and protester in Seattle and how he would work to get away with a similar situation — these documents reveal far more.
​

then sure OK.

But if not, then at the very minimum, you have to admit that things have changed from a privacy standpoint.

In the 1700s people weren't voluntarily putting all kinds of personal stuff out in the public domain! Has the law changed or have people changed? As someone who's done criminal defense I would love it if public posts put on Facebook were not admissible. But...they are. Barring that I would love it if nobody I ever represented wasn't stupid enough to post pictures of themselves smoking reefer and/or posing with guns on Facebook when they're convicted felons. But...they aren't. So.....that's where we are.

The fact that you think they are relevant is not really material to the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment does not say its ok to search without probable cause, "as long as you find something that is relevant"

Again. You should somebody you've just established probable cause. Part of any murder investigation, including one where self defense is claimed, includes looking at motive. But I tell you want. You've got access to the internet. See if you can find a single case from anywhere in U.S. history where police had probable cause to arrest someone for murder, prosecutors had probable cause to try the person for murder, but the prosecution lacked probable cause for a search warrant to read through seize and read through their correspondence from the time of the murder. I'll even give you a link where you can start your search. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=40006&q=&btnG=


Edit: And before you say "It's not relevant that Perry's mom told him to stop posting bad things", I agree. I'm just using this to show that from everything I've seen the documents have either come from Perry's phone itself or from things he publicly posted on Facebook. (And it doesn't sound like his mom's voicemail was used at trial anyway.)

 

[TheTexan]

So your argument is that Daniel Perry's messages came from his friend's phone as opposed to his phone? As for messages Daniel posted on Facebook, unless they were DM's those aren't even considered private. Are you suggesting that in the 1700s if someone tacked documents on the town bulletin board, those public documents would somehow be inadmissible? For the record I haven't seen documentation showing exactly where all of the messages and voicemails came from, but at least some came from his phone.

https://www.kxan.com/news/crime/dan...ns-of-messages-about-guns-killing-protesters/

AUSTIN (KXAN) — A 76-page document unsealed Thursday contains a trove of social media posts, texts and search history for Daniel Perry, who was convicted of killing Black Lives Matter protester Garrett Foster in 2020.

The document was not used during his trial, but they point to evidence the State intends to introduce during the punishment phase. A judge, not a jury, will decide Perry’s sentence, which was a decision the defense made. A date has not yet been set for that step in the legal process.
.
.
.
The documents include a voicemail from a woman identifying herself as his mother, telling Perry to stop posting “bad things” on Facebook “because it’s really hurting people’s feelings and it’s wrong.” A text from a contact saved in Perry’s phone as “Dad” shared a similar sentiment.

While some Facebook messages had been introduced at trial — including messages where Perry discussed a shooting between a driver and protester in Seattle and how he would work to get away with a similar situation — these documents reveal far more.
​

In the 1700s people weren't voluntarily putting all kinds of personal stuff out in the public domain! Has the law changed or have people changed? As someone who's done criminal defense I would love it if public posts put on Facebook were not admissible. But...they are. Barring that I would love it if nobody I ever represented wasn't stupid enough to post pictures of themselves smoking reefer and/or posing with guns on Facebook when they're convicted felons. But...they aren't. So.....that's where we are.

The DM's were (supposed to be) private, yes. AFAIK, the messages that were used in trial, were private DM's and text messages.

Again. You should somebody you've just established probable cause. Part of any murder investigation, including one where self defense is claimed, includes looking at motive. But I tell you want. You've got access to the internet. See if you can find a single case from anywhere in U.S. history where police had probable cause to arrest someone for murder, prosecutors had probable cause to try the person for murder, but the prosecution lacked probable cause for a search warrant to read through seize and read through their correspondence from the time of the murder. I'll even give you a link where you can start your search. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=40006&q=&btnG=

You're asking me to find a search warrant that was denied in a murder case?

One of two things, either:
1) That is incredibly common and trivial to find (which I would hope to be true), or:
2) It never happens (which is honestly, terrifying)

I'll let you tell me, which of the above is true.

 

[jmdrake]

Garrett being recorded as intentionally intimidating drivers, is relevant regardless of any "illegal turn".

You didn't even bother reading the case I gave you. You wouldn't make it past the first semester of law school. Again, the fact that Garrett went up to Perry's car carrying a gun is not in dispute. Adding other instances of that doesn't help prove any new facts so according to long established SCOTUS precedent that's not admissible. But...you didn't read the case and you're just going by what you think the law should be.

 

[ClaytonB]

It does matter that these papers are now electronic.

It used to be that your correspondence was stored in a drawer in a desk in your study. These would typically be off limits in a murder trial unless there was specific probable cause to subpoena them.

Now, every correspondence you have ever made is in your pocket. And all of it is subpoenaed.

I'm not sure why this difference is hard for you to understand?

Because the Hive-Mind all executes the same AI program. It cannot comprehend the Constitution because that's what it was built to destroy.