Austin: Libertarian BLM Protester Shot Dead

[Occam's Banana]

Leftist RIOTS FEARED As TX Gov Abbott Plans PARDON Of Daniel Perry After Killing BLM Extremist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDhRtS-KLmY

 

[69360]

I'm sure the pardon will be a good excuse to liberate some reparations from a walmart.

 

[Origanalist]

You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice.

Not even a mod? I don't believe it.

 

[Origanalist]

Leftist RIOTS FEARED As TX Gov Abbott Plans PARDON Of Daniel Perry After Killing BLM Extremist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDhRtS-KLmY

I'm sure they will be Mostly Peaceful™.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Daniel Perry murder case: Attorney files motion for retrial

https://www.fox7austin.com/news/daniel-perry-murder-case-attorney-files-motion-retrial

By Amanda Ruiz and FOX 7 Austin Digital TeamPublished April 11, 2023 2:31PMAustinFOX 7 Austin

AUSTIN, Texas - An attorney for Sgt. Daniel Perry has filed a motion for a new trial after a jury recently found Perry guilty of murder in the death of Black Lives Matter protester Garrett Foster on July 25, 2020.

The attorney alleges in court documents that key evidence was kept from jurors.

The motion comes as Travis County District Attorney José Garza wrote to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to request an appointment ‘to present evidence considered by the jury' in Perry’s murder trial. Garza also wants to Board to hear from the victim's family.

The request comes days after Governor Greg Abbott called on the Board to pardon Perry.

In a 26-page motion filed April 11, Daniel Perry's defense team called for a new trial. This comes after a jury convicted Perry of murder Friday, April 7 for shooting and killing protester Garrett Foster in 2020.

The motion details why a new trial is necessary by claiming key evidence was kept from the jury which shows Foster and other protesters as the "first aggressor." Several photos were included in the motion. The defense claims those photos were from a month before the incident and show Foster attempting to stop cars using his girlfriend’s wheelchair as other protesters swarm the vehicles.

A transcript of an interview done with Foster the day of the incident was also included. When asked if Foster thinks he’d use his rifle, he responded, "Na. I think uh- I mean if I use it against the cops, I’m dead. I think all the people that hate us, and you know, wanna say **** to us are too big of a ***** to stop and actually do anything about it."

The defense claims that evidence would have proven Foster as the intimidator and prove these protests were not as "peaceful" as some testimony led the jury to believe. The motion adds the jury was subjected to outside influence.

According to the defense, a juror revealed another juror conducted research at home during the overnight break and presented that research to the rest of the jury. It was also said that an alternate juror did not verbally participate in deliberations but did make reaction noises expressing displeasure with certain comments made by the jury.


Daniel Perry sentencing to be decided by Travis County judge
A jury found Daniel Perry guilty of murder for killing Black Lives Matter protester Garrett Foster in 2020. The sentencing might not matter, since Gov. Abbott announced he wants to pardon Perry.

The defense claims this is enough for a new trial.

At the same time, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles is looking into possibly recommending a pardon for Daniel Perry per a request made by Governor Greg Abbott.

The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles sent FOX 7 Austin this statement:

"Chairman Gutierrez, the Presiding Officer of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles has received a request from Governor Abbott asking for an expedited investigation, along with a recommendation as to a pardon for U.S. Army Sergeant Daniel Perry. The board will be commencing that investigation immediately. Upon completion, the board will report to the governor on the investigation and make recommendations to the governor. The Board has no further comment."

"There is no question that Governor Abbott's actions have weakened the rule of law here in the state of Texas, and they have weakened our public safety here in Travis County," said Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza in an interview with FOX 7 Austin Monday.

On April 11, DA Garza requested to meet with the board personally, so he could present evidence considered by the jury in this case. In a letter sent to the board, he asked them to review the trial transcript, evidence from trial officials, and request input from Garrett Foster’s family before making a final recommendation to the governor.

"My thoughts are with the Foster family. I know that they are heartbroken right now. I know that justice feels incredibly elusive for them," said DA Garza.

 

[jmdrake]

https://twitter.com/RyanAFournier/status/1644703256570916865

https://www.dallasjustice.com/grand-jury-proceedings-in-texas-indictment-and-defense/

No Requirement that Prosecutor Present Exculpatory Evidence to Grand Jury
Last year, proposed legislation was presented to the Texas Legislature that would require prosecutors to bring evidence that tends to exculpate (or clear) the defendant before the Grand Jury. In the words of SB 1492, “Prosecutors are required to disclose exculpatory evidence, which is evidence that is favorable to the defendant or tends to negate their guilt. However, currently this requirement does not apply to grand jury proceedings. S.B. 1492 would mandate that this crucial evidence be disclosed to the grand jurors to aide in their decision.” (Original Author’s/Sponsor’s Statement of Intent)

This bill did not make it out of committee. Until future legislative grand jury reform laws are passed, the Texas Grand Jury is not required (and undoubtedly will not) hear exculpatory evidence when considering probable cause to indict an individual for a felony crime.

What does this mean for criminal defense lawyers and their clients? No matter how convincing the witness statements or documents might be, there is no legal requirement that any evidence favorable to the accused be presented for grand jury deliberations. What the Grand Jury hears is 100% up to the prosecutor’s discretion.

The defense lawyer is left to strategize on whether or not informal discussions with the prosecutor are advantageous at this point. If the prosecutor is overly zealous in pursuing the case, then negotiations prior to a Grand Jury indictment may be pointless.​

I wonder. If Kyle Rittenhouse had walked up on a car that night with his AR-15 and got shot and killed and there was no video of the incident and testimony from his militia brothers that he didn't raise his gun and testimony from the driver of the car that he did, would people here assume the driver of the car was not a murderer? I remember the debates here about Ahmaud Abery with people trying to argue that his murderers were somehow justified in chasing him down with truck and finally blocking the road and brandishing a shotgun at him. Had Abery been packing and shot and killed his assailants would that have been self defense? I watched that trial to the in. The killer admitted he never actually saw Abery in the building at all and he thought the person who had stolen the gun from his car previously was white meaning he had zero probable cause for an arrest. Whether someone is guilty or not guilty of murder should depend on the facts of the case and not the politics of the people involved. Based on the evidence I think the McMichaels were guilty of Abery's murder. Based on the evidence I think Rittenhouse was innocent. Based on the evidence in this case, which admittedly I haven't followed as closely, I'm not sure. But it's not a slam dunk miscarriage of justice. One thing I can say for sure. Don't go around posting on social media about who you'd like to hypothetically shoot. Rittenhouse and Perry both did that shyt. Two, Perry would have been well served to have a dash camera. Rittenhouse walked because, IMO, the video evidence was solidly in his favor.

 

[ClaytonB]

Daniel Perry murder case: Attorney files motion for retrial

https://www.fox7austin.com/news/daniel-perry-murder-case-attorney-files-motion-retrial

By Amanda Ruiz and FOX 7 Austin Digital TeamPublished April 11, 2023 2:31PMAustinFOX 7 Austin

AUSTIN, Texas - An attorney for Sgt. Daniel Perry has filed a motion for a new trial after a jury recently found Perry guilty of murder in the death of Black Lives Matter protester Garrett Foster on July 25, 2020.

The attorney alleges in court documents that key evidence was kept from jurors.

The motion comes as Travis County District Attorney José Garza wrote to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to request an appointment ‘to present evidence considered by the jury' in Perry’s murder trial. Garza also wants to Board to hear from the victim's family.

The request comes days after Governor Greg Abbott called on the Board to pardon Perry.

In a 26-page motion filed April 11, Daniel Perry's defense team called for a new trial. This comes after a jury convicted Perry of murder Friday, April 7 for shooting and killing protester Garrett Foster in 2020.

The motion details why a new trial is necessary by claiming key evidence was kept from the jury which shows Foster and other protesters as the "first aggressor." Several photos were included in the motion. The defense claims those photos were from a month before the incident and show Foster attempting to stop cars using his girlfriend’s wheelchair as other protesters swarm the vehicles.

A transcript of an interview done with Foster the day of the incident was also included. When asked if Foster thinks he’d use his rifle, he responded, "Na. I think uh- I mean if I use it against the cops, I’m dead. I think all the people that hate us, and you know, wanna say **** to us are too big of a ***** to stop and actually do anything about it."

The defense claims that evidence would have proven Foster as the intimidator and prove these protests were not as "peaceful" as some testimony led the jury to believe. The motion adds the jury was subjected to outside influence.

According to the defense, a juror revealed another juror conducted research at home during the overnight break and presented that research to the rest of the jury. It was also said that an alternate juror did not verbally participate in deliberations but did make reaction noises expressing displeasure with certain comments made by the jury.


Daniel Perry sentencing to be decided by Travis County judge
A jury found Daniel Perry guilty of murder for killing Black Lives Matter protester Garrett Foster in 2020. The sentencing might not matter, since Gov. Abbott announced he wants to pardon Perry.

The defense claims this is enough for a new trial.

At the same time, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles is looking into possibly recommending a pardon for Daniel Perry per a request made by Governor Greg Abbott.

I don't know how pardons work but my understanding is it would still be on his record. The "conviction" needs to be thrown out. We all know what those Antifa thugs were on the streets to do -- harass and intimidate. They didn't go to the level of Portland because they know Texas would shut them down in a heartbeat, but these are the very same crisis-actors being bused/flown around the country to block roads and harass and intimidate local citizenry with their street-thug tactics. Perry's vehicle was stopped by the crowd in the street and Foster brandished or pointed his firearm at Perry. That is a deadly-force situation, any police officer would have been clear under the law to fire in self-defense so, obviously, Perry also was. This isn't even a legally difficult situation, this is blatant legal persecution of someone for political reasons. There doesn't need to be a retrial, the "conviction" needs to be overturned and the charges thrown out, with prejudice.

 

[Occam's Banana]

No Requirement that Prosecutor Present Exculpatory Evidence to Grand Jury

[...]

No matter how convincing the witness statements or documents might be, there is no legal requirement that any evidence favorable to the accused be presented for grand jury deliberations. What the Grand Jury hears is 100% up to the prosecutor’s discretion.

This is at the root of why they say prosecutors can "indict a ham sandwich".

Based on the evidence in this case, which admittedly I haven't followed as closely, I'm not sure. But it's not a slam dunk miscarriage of justice. One thing I can say for sure. Don't go around posting on social media about who you'd like to hypothetically shoot. Rittenhouse and Perry both did that shyt. Two, Perry would have been well served to have a dash camera. Rittenhouse walked because, IMO, the video evidence was solidly in his favor.

I agree with all of this - but I would add that, while I agree that "it's not a slam dunk miscarriage of justice" (which I take to mean that it's not obvious that Perry is "not guilty" [1]), I also don't think one can say that it's "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he is "guilty" [1]. That is why I support an acquittal or pardon.



[1] Keeping in mind that, strictly legalistically, "not guilty" does not mean the same thing as "innocent", and "guilty" does not mean the same thing as "not innocent".

 

[Anti Federalist]

Texas Stand Your Ground law states:


Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

My understanding of the facts says Perry's situation satisfied 1-C as well as (2) and (3).

Perry is innocent.

He got railroaded by a Bolshevik court

 

[jmdrake]

Texas Stand Your Ground law states:


Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

My understanding of the facts says Perry's situation satisfied 1-C as well as (2) and (3).

Perry is innocent.

He got railroaded by a Bolshevik court

I don't see how you come close to 1 (C). 1 (B) maybe.

I also don't see how you get that he "did not provoke the person against whom the force was used" when the un rebutted facts are that he ran a red light and drove towards the protestors.

https://www.statesman.com/story/new...ry-murder-conviction-pardon-talk/70096901007/

Perry's attorneys said he was defending himself when he shot Foster because Foster raised his rifle at him. Prosecutors said Perry instigated the incident by driving toward a group of marchers and that Foster was defending himself when he approached Perry's car.

Perry, an Army sergeant, was working as an Uber driver in Austin on the night of July 25, 2020, when he ran a red light at the intersection of Fourth Street and Congress Avenue and drove toward a Black Lives Matter march before stopping. Foster, carrying an AK-47 rifle, was among a group of protesters who approached his car. Perry unrolled his window and shot Foster five times with a .357 revolver before driving away and calling 911. Another protester shot at Perry's car three times as he drove away.​

And before you say "Don't trust the MSM" there was video of him driving though I apparently no video of the seconds right before the shooting itself. You have social media posts of a guy that said he could shoot protesters and get away with it, he runs a red light, drives into the crowd...shoots a protester who may or may not have raised his AK47 at him, and he should get a pardon because......?

 

[jmdrake]

This is at the root of why they say prosecutors can "indict a ham sandwich".



I agree with all of this - but I would add that, while I agree that "it's not a slam dunk miscarriage of justice" (which I take to mean that it's not obvious that Perry is "not guilty" [1]), I also don't think one can say that it's "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he is "guilty" [1]. That is why I support an acquittal or pardon.



[1] Keeping in mind that, strictly legalistically, "not guilty" does not mean the same thing as "innocent", and "guilty" does not mean the same thing as "not innocent".

If the bar for a pardon is "A juror might have reasonably voted for an acquittal in this case" then there are a lot of people in prison who should get pardons.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

...
I wonder. If Kyle Rittenhouse had walked up on a car that night with his AR-15 and got shot and killed and there was no video of the incident and testimony from his militia brothers that he didn't raise his gun and testimony from the driver of the car that he did, would people here assume the driver of the car was not a murderer? Based on the evidence I think Rittenhouse was innocent. Based on the evidence in this case, which admittedly I haven't followed as closely, I'm not sure. But it's not a slam dunk miscarriage of justice. One thing I can say for sure. Don't go around posting on social media about who you'd like to hypothetically shoot. Rittenhouse and Perry both did that shyt. Two, Perry would have been well served to have a dash camera. Rittenhouse walked because, IMO, the video evidence was solidly in his favor.

Rittenhouse and Perry were both attacked by mobs with guns. Both took defensive action.

If Rittenhouse was part of a mob trapping someone and aiming a gun at them, then Rittenhouse could get shot, and it would be self defense.

 

[jmdrake]

Rittenhouse and Perry were both attacked by mobs with guns. Both took defensive action.

Perry ran a redlight and drove into a crowd of people. Rittenhouse was actively running from someone who did not have a gun but tried to take it from him. Apples and oranges.

If Rittenhouse was part of a mob trapping someone and aiming a gun at them, then Rittenhouse could get shot, and it would be self defense.

No actual evidence besides Perry's word (the guy who ran the redlight and drove into the crowd) that a gun was raised at him.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Locally (within 1 and 1.5 hours), we had a few men with covid masks and some sort of antifia/communist slogans trying to pull over cars at a stoplight with drawn guns.

The media quickly buried the story, and I never found out if they were arrested or imprisoned.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Perry ran a redlight and drove into a crowd of people. Rittenhouse was actively running from someone who did not have a gun but tried to take it from him. Apples and oranges.
...

One of the people chasing Rittenhouse fired shots before Rittenhouse was run down.

And how many people did Perry hit when he “drove into a crowd”? Where was he supposed to go? In reverse?

 

[jmdrake]

One of the people chasing Rittenhouse fired shots before Rittenhouse was run down.

I'm aware of that. That's not the person Rittenhouse shot. That said I'm on record as saying Rittenhouse should have walked. But there was video and witnesses of Rittenhouse's gun being grabbed.

And how many people did Perry hit when he “drove into a crowd”? Where was he supposed to go? In reverse?

Why did he run the red light?

 

[Occam's Banana]

If the bar for a pardon is "A juror might have reasonably voted for an acquittal in this case" then there are a lot of people in prison who should get pardons.

Then there would be, indeed - especially given that the standard for a verdict of "guilty" is supposed to be "beyond a reasonable doubt".

If "a juror might have reasonably voted for an acquittal", then ipso facto, that standard cannot have been met.

(But of course, we don't live in the just-so fantasy world of grade-school civics-class textbooks, so ... *shrug*)

 

[ClaytonB]

Texas Stand Your Ground law states:


Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

My understanding of the facts says Perry's situation satisfied 1-C as well as (2) and (3).

Perry is innocent.

He got railroaded by a Bolshevik court

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again."

EXACTLY

Not only is Perry 100% clear under Texas law, but he had good reason to fear for his life in that situation. I cannot speculate about his motives, but short of Perry saying something like, "I am not afraid at all, I just want to kill you for sport!" before pulling the trigger, he was absolutely justified. You can even hear someone in the crowd bang or hit the vehicle in the dashcam footage. Being surrounded in a vehicle in that situation is extremely dangerous because if the crowd is armed and violent, the driver may only have seconds to decide whether he is justified to start running people over and, even then, escape is not guaranteed. A plainclothes police officer coming around that corner, surrounded, vehicle thumped on, and an armed rioter brandishing or pointing his weapon at the officer, would 100% be justified to draw and fire in self-defense in any state in the US. This is not a 50/50 case. It's not a close-call. Perry is one of a large and growing number of political prisoners of an out-of-control Injustice System in the US. It's time that we start cleaning out the courthouses. Corrupt judges, DAs, etc. need to go... I'm sick of this shit...

 

[ClaytonB]

he ran a red light

He took a rolling right-hand turn which is not at ALL comparable to running a red-light straight-through. Don't be absurd.

and drove towards the protestors.

Um, they were blocking traffic, so where else could he drive??

... Foster was defending himself when he approached Perry's car.

Please ponder the contradiction between the two underlined statements. Take your time and see if you can spot the contradiction. I'll wait...

And before you say "Don't trust the MSM" there was video of him driving though I apparently no video of the seconds right before the shooting itself.

Here ya go:



The video exonerates Perry, hands-down. I'm not sure Perry's motives in taking the right-hand turn at the light, but it appears he was already being harrassed by protestors and was trying to get away from them when he accidentally ran into the main crowd. Even so, that is at most a traffic misdemeanor, on any other day it would have just been a citation. He clearly STOPs, which means he was not pulling a Christmas Day parade massacre like the wannabe thug from Kenosha. The fact he stops proves that his subsequent firing was not some kind of murderous rampage but was, indeed, a targeted act of self-defense.

You have social media posts of a guy that said he could shoot protesters and get away with it, he runs a red light, drives into the crowd...shoots a protester who may or may not have raised his AK47 at him, and he should get a pardon because......?

His social media posts are not directly relevant and I wonder how competent Perry's lawyer really was in this case, it's pretty obvious that his publicly-stated political opinions about the ongoing protests at that time have nothing to do with this event unless you can prove that it was some kind of premeditated act, i.e. "I'm going to go kill a protestor and get away with it", and then he proceeds to do just that. Short of that, it's irrelevant.

 

[ClaytonB]

Why did he run the red light?

I don't know if he's stated his reasons for that, but are you suggesting that Perry was just on a rampage to run people over, or something? Because otherwise, even disobeying the traffic control by taking a rolling right-hand turn is irrelevant to the subsequent events. BTW, a rolling right-hand on red is a pretty minor traffic infraction that countless people perform every single day, I've even seen Tesla's self-driving AI do it...