Austin: Libertarian BLM Protester Shot Dead

[Brian4Liberty]

According to Texas law, even when a driver can make a legal left or right turn, he must yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk.

https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/d...nsportation/Ped_Safety_and_the_Law_Austin.pdf

There were pedestrians in and out of the crosswalk. Perry created a dangerous situation. As to [MENTION=1874]Brian4Liberty[/MENTION]'s point, you don't have to actually run over someone to be guilty of reckless driving. And technically assault is "putting someone in fear of imminent context that is harmful or offensive." If you drive at me and I jump out of the way, that's still assault. Where was he supposed to go? He didn't have to go anywhere. He could have stopped his vehicle and patiently waited. If he had stopped at the red light, and THEN Foster had come up to him that would have been a different situation altogether. I get it. "Conservative gooood....antifa baaaaaad." But the law isn't supposed to work that way.

Your assumption or premise seems to be that this was a normal, everyday situation with pedestrians minding their own business.

And technically assault is "putting someone in fear of imminent context that is harmful or offensive."

It seems like that would apply to a mob blocking traffic. Who knows what they might do? Even before a semi-automatic rifle was brandished, does a person need to "patiently" wait while a mob beats on their vehicle? Dents their vehicle? Breaks the windows on their vehicle? Or pulls them out of the vehicle and stomps their head into the ground?

Most people, other than the Marxist DA and jury, would find the entire situation a direct and imminent threat. A rifle brandished at the window should scare anyone.

Can one person be held to the standard of obeying even the most minute traffic law under threatening circumstances? I have run red lights more than once to avoid threatening people approaching my vehicle. Should I get a ticket?

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

They've been getting away with it for a long time, and so they imagine that this is "how the world works". They do not understand covenant law, and they do not understand the true basis of the authority of the courts. It's not black robes and funny wigs...

"Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." (Deut. 19:21)

All will be paid back in due time. Nothing is more certain.

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; "

You'd think more people would recognize that God has a heavy hand in politics, in a country founded on appealing to Him as the Supreme Judge of the world.

Proverbs 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.

 

[ClaytonB]

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; "

You'd think more people would recognize that God has a heavy hand in politics, in a country founded on appealing to Him as the Supreme Judge of the world.

Proverbs 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to SpiritOf1776_J4 again."

 

[Anti Federalist]

‘Soros-Backed’ Texas DA Accused of Evidence Tampering, Witness Retaliation in Army Sgt. Self-Defense Murder Case

https://www.breitbart.com/border/20...liation-in-army-sgt-self-defense-murder-case/

BOB PRICE 13 Apr 2023

Lawyers for Army Sergeant Daniel Perry accused Travis County District Attorney José Garza of tampering and retaliation against a detective witness. They say the district attorney prevented the detective from presenting evidence to the grand jury supporting Perry’s self-defense claim in the alleged murder of a protester in Austin. The accusation resurfaced on Thursday in a letter from the defense attorneys to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. Texas Governor Greg Abbott recently asked the board to consider a recommendation for a pardon.

Defense attorneys F. Clinton Broden and Doug O’Connell sent a letter to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to present evidence in support of the governor’s requested pardon recommendation. Governor Abbott made the request on April 8 following the conviction by a Travis County jury of murder in the Daniel Perry self-defense trial, Breitbart Texas reported. The letter from the defense team (attached below) reveals exculpatory evidence that was not allowed to be presented to the jury by the trial judge.

The letter resurfaces a previously made accusation that Travis County DA Garza tampered with evidence prepared by the lead investigator during the time leading up to the grand jury hearing. A motion requesting an evidentiary hearing regarding the initial allegation was denied by the trial judge. The judge denied the evidentiary hearing request but did not rule on the merits of the allegations, Fox 7 reported.

“As the Board will no doubt learn, the lead detective in this case was forbidden by the Travis County District Attorney from mentioning a great deal of exculpatory evidence to the grand jury which considered the case in the first instance,” the attorneys wrote.

While acknowledging the DA is not required to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury, the defense team added, “there is a very clear legal distinction between choosing not to present exculpatory information to a grand jury and tampering with the testimony of a grand jury witness by shaping that witness’s testimony as to what that witness is allowed to say under fear of reprisals.”

“In fact, when the decorated detective later explained in an affidavit that he believed the Travis County District Attorney tampered with his grand jury testimony, the District Attorney did retaliate by putting the detective on a Brady list which ultimately caused him to resign after almost 30 years of exemplary service at the Austin Police Department,” the attorneys continued.

A Brady list is compiled by prosecutors or police departments and contains a list of law enforcement officers who “have sustained incidents of untruthfulness, criminal convictions, candor issues, or some other type of issue placing their credibility into question,” according to a presentation published by the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

“Being placed on a Brady list is the kiss of death to a homicide detective’s career,” Breitbart Texas legal analyst Lana Shadwick said. “The detective can no longer serve as a homicide detective because they would not be able to testify in court about the evidence they gathered during the investigation.”

In August 2021, Detective Fugitt filed an affidavit (attached below) detailing the allegations against District Attorney Garza. In that sworn affidavit, Fugitt stated:

I firmly believe the District Attorney’s. Office, acting under the authority of Jose P. Garza, tampered with me as a witness. Often witness tampering is subtle. In this case, there were foreseeable consequences if I did not comply and tailor my grand jury presentation as directed and failure to do so would adversely affect my working relationship with the District Attorney’s Office for the foreseeable future. I was afforded no choice but to comply with the directives that were issued to me by Jose Garza through his assistants.

I am familiar with the crime of witness tampering as set out in the Texas Penal Code and under the circumstances believe myself to be a victim of such tampering.

During the trial which concluded on April 7, Detective Fugitt testified as a witness for the defense.

The letter from the attorneys to the Board of Pardons and Paroles also contains the defense motion filed this week that alleges multiple incidents of juror misconduct. In one of those incidents, a juror brought in outside research he conducted away from the jury room, Breitbart Texas reported. The juror then allegedly used that research and his interpretation of that research to shape his own opinion in the case and to influence other jurors.

Houston criminal defense attorney and legal analyst Carmen Roe told Breitbart Texas after examining the motion, “Assuming the truthfulness of this juror’s sworn testimony, there is no question that an ‘outside influence’ occurred.”

“If a juror performed legal research and instructed the other jurors on the burden of proof that was inconsistent with the Court’s specific instructions, then there can be little doubt that this amounted to an improper ‘outside influence’ that reasonably impacted the jury’s verdict on a critical issue in a murder trial – defendant’s self-defense claim,” Roe concluded.

Following the jury’s return last week of a guilty verdict, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sharply criticized Travis County District Attorney José Garza who he described as a “Soros-backed” prosecutor, Breitbart Texas reported.

“Self-defense is a God-given right, not a crime,” Attorney General Paxton told Fox News on Saturday morning. “Unfortunately, the Soros-backed DA in Travis County cares more about the radical agenda of dangerous Antifa and BLM mobs than justice.”

Subsequently, Governor Greg Abbott released a statement that he has asked the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles for a recommendation regarding the issuance of a pardon to Sgt. Perry.

“Texas has one of the strongest ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws of self-defense that cannot be nullified by a jury or a progressive District Attorney,” Governor Abbott wrote in a tweeted statement on Saturday.

“I have made that request and instructed the Board to expedite its review,” Governor Abbott stated. “I look forward to approving the Board’s pardon recommendation as soon as it hits my desk.”

In response to an inquiry from Breitbart Texas, Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles Chief of Staff Timothy McDonnell said the board has commenced its investigation regarding a possible pardon recommendation for Sgt. Perry.

“While proceeding expeditiously, the board will conduct a thorough investigation and provide the information to the Board Members,” McDonnell wrote. “As such, there is no specific timeline that will be provided.”

 

[jmdrake]

Your assumption or premise seems to be that this was a normal, everyday situation with pedestrians minding their own business.

I've watched the video. I'm not making any assumptions at all. You seem to be though. There were fewer people in the street that night than on a typical Saturday night in downtown Nashville. Nobody was being attacked. No cars were being surrounded. People were walking down the street. I remember on New Years Eve 2007 we had a huge Ron Paul march downtown Nashville. (Had to be a least 1,000 people). At times when you're a driver in a situation like that (and I've been the driver MULTIPLE times), you have to sit a wait for a while for the crowd to pass. The crowd Daniel Perry decided to drive into wasn't sitting there blocking traffic. They were moving and it would have cleared out if he had been patient. But he wasn't.

It seems like that would apply to a mob blocking traffic. Who knows what they might do?

That's not what happened. Again, I've watched the video. Just watched it again. The crowd was not acting angry. They weren't blocking anything. They were moving.

Even before a semi-automatic rifle was brandished, does a person need to "patiently" wait while a mob beats on their vehicle? Dents their vehicle? Breaks the windows on their vehicle? Or pulls them out of the vehicle and stomps their head into the ground?

None of that happened before Daniel Perry drove into the crowd. And in Charlottesville a car became a deadly weapon.

Here. Watch the video again.



Point to me where you see anyone attacking Daniel Perry's car before he drove into the crowd. A Daniel Perry easily could have attacked a Ron Paul crowd.

Most people, other than the Marxist DA and jury, would find the entire situation a direct and imminent threat. A rifle brandished at the window should scare anyone.

Was the rifle brandished? That's the argument. Are you ready to effectively do away with the open carry aspect of the 2nd amendment and say anything someone is carrying a gun, whether it's pointed at anyone else or not, that justification for killing them? Ummm.....okay. Inconsistent much?

Can one person be held to the standard of obeying even the most minute traffic law under threatening circumstances? I have run red lights more than once to avoid threatening people approaching my vehicle. Should I get a ticket?

Nobody was approaching his vehicle. The crowd was marching straight down the street. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't know if you have noticed, but, the law is officially lawless in this country.

We are at war with an enemy that is so ruthless that, if victorious, they will exterminate both me and you and our families.

If I can get one of theirs dusted and save one of mine in the process, so be it.

I have noticed. And ^that is how you lose. The "us verses them" mentality and thinking "winning" is based on racking up body counts. You don't know Daniel Perry as well as you think you do. I've read more about him, and he'd consider you goyim and a threat and he'd put a bullet in you just as fast as he did Foster. He's just as much into "identity politics" as any Marxist. Stalin and Trotsky didn't like each other, but that didn't make either an ally of liberty.

Who knows?

Can it be proved he had malicious intent?

Well...that's why all of the hateful rhetoric he put out on social media prior to the shooting is relevant.

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

Perry had conversations with friends on social media and on his phone that showed he was angry at protesters. He told a friend he had watched a video of a protester getting shot in Seattle after pulling someone out of a car. Perry said that since that shooting happened in Seattle the gunman would probably go to prison, but "if it was in Texas he would already be released."

Perry also had another conversation with a friend on social media saying he might be able to "kill a few people on my way to work." "They are rioting outside my apartment complex," his message said. The friend responded saying, "Can you legally do so?" Perry replied, "If they attack me or try to pull me out of my car then yes."

Perry also posted on social media that "I have been publicly declared a racist because I drove around a protest to work." "I am afraid of being attacked by people of this certain movement who happen to compare my people (Jewish people) to termites," he went on to say. In another social media post, Perry said the demands that protesters were making were going to put police officers in danger. "Just keep shooting them until they are no longer a threat," Perry said of the protesters.​

So, you've got an unhinged identity politics loose cannot running around worried about others who attack his "people" for being "termites" and who threatens to shoot protesters given a chance and brags that he can shoot a protester and get away with it. And then....what do you know? He gets a chance to provoke a response from some protesters and he....."accidentally" runs a red light and drives smack dab into a crowd of people who are probably already on edge and post Charlottesville rightly view cars as deadly weapons. What could possibly go wrong?

Edit: One more thing. While I loved "The Untouchables" you know that's statist propaganda right? Al Capone was taken down temporarily for not paying his taxes, but wasn't in prison that long and ultimately died of syphilis.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I've watched the video. I'm not making any assumptions at all. You seem to be though. There were fewer people in the street that night than on a typical Saturday night in downtown Nashville. Nobody was being attacked. No cars were being surrounded.

LOL. I had watched that video multiple times, but it's not very close up or a good view on either screen. At first I thought that his car was the one with the dashcam, but that didn't make any sense. So then I thought that his car was the dark sedan that was in frame right from the start on the right side of the split screen. People were walking past, and I assumed that the person with the rifle had walked up to his driver side window, opposite the camera position, where you can't see what the people were doing. I also saw all the people run over there, but you couldn't really tell where they were running to exactly.

So now I take it that the car making the fast right turn as seen from the left side of the screen (dashcam), was Daniel Perry. That makes a huge difference. My bad on that!

The crowd Daniel Perry decided to drive into wasn't sitting there blocking traffic. They were moving and it would have cleared out if he had been patient. But he wasn't.

Now, I can tell he did make a fast right turn, and honked his horn. That is a bit provocative. But did he hit anybody? I can't tell from that video. I do know that the mob rushed his car at that point, and I can only assume that is when the guy with the rifle walked up to his driver door. From honk to shooting was only about ten seconds, but in that ten seconds, the mob had rushed his vehicle. We can't tell what the guy with the rifle was doing during that time.

Point to me where you see anyone attacking Daniel Perry's car before he drove into the crowd.

Now that I hopefully have the correct vehicle, you are correct, it doesn't look like he was stopped or surrounded before he made the fast right turn.

I can't tell from the video if his car actually touched anyone. The case could be made that during the ten seconds between honking and shots fired, that multiple people from the crowd had started to behave in a threatening manner, even banging on his car or windows. The video is too far away and at the wrong angles to tell. All we can tell from the video is the fast right turn, the honk, the crowd running towards the vehicles, and shots fired. I believe those are the facts that can be had from those two angles.

 

[ClaytonB]

... if he had been patient. But he wasn't.

So, now, being "impatient" disqualifies your second-amendment right to defend yourself against a threat to your life by an armed Antifa thug??

There is no connection between Perry's driving, and the question of whether Perry was justified to defend himself. To say otherwise, you have to argue that Foster's actions were somehow "justified" by Perry's driving, which is absurd. While Foster also had the right to be armed, exercising that right places added burden on him to behave within the constraints of the law, meaning, Foster's brandishing/pointing of his rifle at Perry was a criminal act, in itself.

The crowd was not acting angry.

The crowd was, indeed, aggressive. I'm from Portland, and I've seen these thugs up-close, and their operating tactics. The pedestrian in red who aggressively approaches the dashcam vehicle (left-panel) trying to make a right-hand turn is a signature SOP of Antifa thugs trying to create street drama so they can deal out "street justice" -- smashing windows, denting vehicle, assaulting drivers, theft and destroying personal property, just to name a few. Note that this was before Perry honked which, by the way, was not illegal for him to do (horn is legal to use to warn pedestrians to clear the roadway). Also note that, by the time of the Foster/Perry incident, there had already been countless dozens of such incidents all around the country, but especially in Portland where I was living at that time.

... Daniel Perry drove into the crowd.

Daniel Perry hit zero pedestrians. He drove between the protester/rioters who were in the roadway. He came to a full stop when the roadway was blocked by pedestrians and he could not proceed without striking someone, proving he had no intent to run anyone over, or threaten with his vehicle.

And in Charlottesville a car became a deadly weapon.

You want to talk about everything in the world except for Austin. How about sticking to the actual events and the actual case instead of trying to distract and gaslight the thread with everything under the sun except the case itself. Perry's conviction has nothing to do with his vehicle. So it's not part of the actual charge itself, the event itself.

Point to me where you see anyone attacking Daniel Perry's car before he drove into the crowd.

After he honks, while his vehicle is still motionless, there is a clearly audible strike or thump against the car. That was administered by someone in that crowd standing directly next to his car, and matches precisely with the SOP tactics of Antifa thugs. When a vehicle fails to follow their self-appointed traffic-police thugs, they will swarm the vehicle and begin denting it and breaking glass while blocking escape by taking "basketball defense"-stance in front of the vehicle. In itself, the thump on the vehicle was cause for Perry to be prepared to defend himself.

A Daniel Perry easily could have attacked a Ron Paul crowd.

I see right through the umpteen-zillion lines of NPC code that calculated this sub-narrative, and it's total bullshit. Foster = veteran, Perry = veteran, Foster = left "libertarian", Perry = conservative, etc. etc. Get out of here with the bullshit political-calculus and let's talk about facts. The fact is that Foster approached Perry's vehicle, armed, and according to Perry, was raising the rifle to point it at him, when he fired. Antifa thugs deny that Foster did that, but given the political motivation of the rally, this is not neutral witness testimony and should not be treated as such. A mob member testifying his buddy didn't pull a firearm is not admissable testimony in any non-kangaroo court. But anything goes in a Soros Circus Court.

Was the rifle brandished? That's the argument.

Perry's stated reason for firing on Foster was that he was raising the rifle to point it at him, and there is no credible evidence to the contrary. While this case is tragic in certain respects, and dances on the edge of a Fistful-of-Dollars style gun draw, the fact is that Perry would be justified to fire if, indeed, Foster was raising his rifle at him; no credible evidence to the contrary has been presented and Perry has not changed his story, so there is no external or internal contradiction in it.

Are you ready to effectively do away with the open carry aspect of the 2nd amendment and say anything someone is carrying a gun,

Wowwee, look at those NPC gears a-spinnin'! This must be the preview edition of ChatGPT-5 ... impressively blockheaded!

Nobody was approaching his vehicle.

Perry stated that Foster approached his vehicle and was raising his rifle when he fired. I am not aware of testimony that contradicts that Foster was approaching the vehicle. Solid facts on this case are scarcer than hen's teeth despite a broadband connection and the entire world's information supposedly at our fingertips through the Internet. The censorship/propaganda in the US has officially reached CCP proportions...

 

[ClaytonB]

I can't tell from the video if his car actually touched anyone. The case could be made that during the ten seconds between honking and shots fired, that multiple people from the crowd had started to behave in a threatening manner, even banging on his car or windows. The video is too far away and at the wrong angles to tell. All we can tell from the video is the fast right turn, the honk, the crowd running towards the vehicles, and shots fired. I believe those are the facts that can be had from those two angles.

It is clearly audible in the dashcam footage that someone hit his vehicle right after he honked (@0:18, you can see his tail lights, he's stopped). In fact, on review, I hear two thumps, a light one at 0:18 and a much louder one at 0:19. So, the vehicle was struck at least once, and I think twice. There were no pedestrians in the immediate path of the vehicle as he rounds the corner, and he comes to a full stop immediately after turning. That is not the actions of someone "driving into a crowd" to run people over. While his driving was not polite, it is not untypical from what I have experienced in any big city. Note that, while he is stopped, members of Antifa are able to converge from across the intersection, on foot, onto his vehicle, before the first shot is fired. This indicates that Perry is, indeed, telling the truth, that he drew his firearm and fired as a result of the actions of Foster... he did not have the gun pulled out, waiting to pop off on the first protester he encountered, or whatever. So, the entire "picture" of a reckless rageaholic prowling downtown Austin for the opportunity to drive his car over protesters and shoot them, is false.

The private communications which the State seized (4th amendment violation?) to insinuate this story-line, are completely irrelevant. A person has a right to express their feelings in private in whatever language they like, including hyperbolic language like, "I want to kill those protesters". We all know that a person may make a hyperbolic expression that does not express any literal intention to do what is indicated by the bare words themselves. The very fact that the prosecution introduced this "evidence" (and was allowed, by the court), proves that the case against Perry is total bullshit, and that the court itself is just another Soros Circus Show.

Edit to add: Note that an Antifa thug shoots back at Perry as he is driving away, which is a plain and simple criminal act (not charged, of course). Firing at a vehicle driving away from you can not be justified under any circumstances. It is necessarily a criminal act.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I have noticed. And ^that is how you lose. The "us verses them" mentality and thinking "winning" is based on racking up body counts. You don't know Daniel Perry as well as you think you do. I've read more about him, and he'd consider you goyim and a threat and he'd put a bullet in you just as fast as he did Foster. He's just as much into "identity politics" as any Marxist. Stalin and Trotsky didn't like each other, but that didn't make either an ally of liberty.

Perry's a Jew? I'll be dipped...

War is all about racking up body counts. The winner is the one who has the last man standing.

Brutal, of course, but always remember, I didn't call down the thunder here.

I'll pick sides and maneuver as I see fit to best protect my interests.

So, you've got an unhinged identity politics loose cannot running around worried about others who attack his "people" for being "termites" and who threatens to shoot protesters given a chance and brags that he can shoot a protester and get away with it. And then....what do you know? He gets a chance to provoke a response from some protesters and he....."accidentally" runs a red light and drives smack dab into a crowd of people who are probably already on edge and post Charlottesville rightly view cars as deadly weapons. What could possibly go wrong?

I'll grant you that point, it seems valid...maybe there are no "good" guys in this scenario.

But as I noted before, there is no law or justice in this nation anymore.

So, I'm left with no choice but to choose what defends my points.

Edit: One more thing. While I loved "The Untouchables" you know that's statist propaganda right? Al Capone was taken down temporarily for not paying his taxes, but wasn't in prison that long and ultimately died of syphilis.

Oh yeah, I realize that...it's mostly all fantasy, but still a good tale.

The whole story of Frank Nitti in the movie was all bullshit as well.

 

[jmdrake]

So, now, being "impatient" disqualifies your second-amendment right to defend yourself against a threat to your life by an armed Antifa thug??

No. Being an arsehole racist Marxist identity politics goon ready to gun down anyone associated with "antisemitism" (a significant portion of the Ron Paul movement fits the ADL definition of antisemitism) and bragging about being able to kill protesters and get away with it disqualifies you from provoking a violent situation by breaking the law, running a red light and driving into a crowd and then saying you're "scared" because your car is being punched. [MENTION=3169]Anti Federalist[/MENTION] sees the point I'm making. If you don't then that's on you. Same for [MENTION=1874]Brian4Liberty[/MENTION]. Nobody that believes in liberty should be supporting Daniel Perry or his actions.

 

[ClaytonB]

Dude, you are seriously all over the map... hittin' the bottle a little hard lately? Emotional issues? Hope you get it sorted.

No. Being an arsehole racist Marxist identity politics goon ready to gun down anyone associated with "antisemitism" (a significant portion of the Ron Paul movement fits the ADL definition of antisemitism)

What in the sam-hell are you on about?! What does anti-semitism have anything to do with anything? What does "the Ron Paul movement" have to do with whether Perry was justified to use a firearm to defend himself from Foster and other Antifa thugs that night?! Nothing!

and bragging about being able to kill protesters and get away with it

Before any private communication Perry made is relevant, it needs to be directly (causally) connected to the case. The presumption in most cases is that the judge would have refereed that according to the stringent standards of court procedure. But we live in Clown World and this trial was conducted in a known Soros Circus Court, so yeah. The fact that that evidence was permitted in this case means nothing. If a prosecutor sifted through all my posts on this forum, they could find dozens, maybe even hundreds, of "extremist" statements that could be construed (out-of-context) this way or that way, even though everything I write on this forum is written as an expression of protected free speech, nothing more or less. But a kangaroo court doesn't bother with such silly distinctions.

disqualifies you from provoking a violent situation

That's not how the law works. That's not how anything works. The only question before a court of law in a criminal case is whether the facts of the case establish, beyond reasonable doubt (as determined by a jury of peers), that the defendant is guilty of the charges brought by the State. PERIOD. There are no other considerations about what private communications you've made "disqualify" you from what public behaviors. All of that political talking-head BS is 100.0% completely irrelevant.

The question of the case against Perry is only whether he was justified or not to use his firearm to defend himself, when he fired. That there were criminal elements in the crowd is proven by the dashcam video, because Perry is fired upon as he drives away from danger, and then proceeds to call 911 on himself. That alone is ex post facto evidence that Perry's decision to use deadly force to defend himself was reasonable and justified.

by breaking the law, running a red light

Rolling right-hand on red. He did not run the red straight through. He navigated his vehicle between protestors and stopped when the path of the vehicle was completely blocked, which proves he had no intention to run anyone over. And the fact that he was not trying to run anyone over moots the rolling right-hand on red... it's as irrelevant as a hypothetical speeding ticket he had gotten for speeding down the freeway a year ago would be.

--snip irrelevant nonsense--
[MENTION=3169]Anti Federalist[/MENTION] sees the point I'm making. If you don't then that's on you. Same for [MENTION=1874]Brian4Liberty[/MENTION].

Whoopdy-friggin-do. This is called a discussion forum, not a hive-mind forum.

Nobody that believes in liberty should be supporting Daniel Perry or his actions.

There's simply no connection whatsoever. Your entire line of reasoning is verbal vomit on a ChatGPT scale.

The connections you're drawing to liberty, Marxism, the Ron Paul movement, the opinions of other forum participants, and everything else under the sun, are textbook examples of motivated reasoning. You desperately need to build some kind of "momentum" or "consensus" that Perry was wrong. Why is that?

 

[jmdrake]

Perry's a Jew? I'll be dipped...

War is all about racking up body counts. The winner is the one who has the last man standing.

That is the LOSING STRATEGY that McNamara adopted in Vietnam and the Rhodesian government adopted in the Bush War.





Seriously HAVE YOU LEARNED NOTHING ABOUT BLOWBACK FROM RON PAUL AFTER SUPPORTING HIM FOR ALL THESE YEARS? The Russians killed more Afghan insurgents that the Afghans killed of them. The Russians are gone. The Afghans insurgents are still there. We killed more Taliban than they killed of us. We are gone. The Taliban is still there. And why would you pick one "side" or the other in this situation? You're the one that posted all of those stories of cops killing puppies. Well despite the fact that George Floyd was a career criminal, he was still murdered on video by a filthy cop. It wasn't an accident. That cop kept his knee on Floyd's back even after Floyd no longer had a pulse. Yes, the BLM movement's response was incorrect. Stores should not have been looted. Police stations should not have been burned. Innocent people should not have been beaten and shot. But not everyone in BLM did that shyt. In the video that I just re-posted, people were peacefully walking down the street until Daniel Perry broke the peace. Piss on him.

I didn't protest in 2020 but I supported and still support those who peacefully did. Do you want to take me out for the sake of your "body count?" Yeah. Let's make this real. My sons peacefully marched. If some jackass like Daniel Perry, after breaking the law and driving into a crowd, started firing at someone who was legally open carrying and one of those bullets missed and hit and killed my son, and the arsehole got pardoned, what do you think I would do? I am one of the most peaceful people you know. I don't even own a gun. But I promise you whoever did that would need to be looking over his shoulder the rest of his life. You need to back away from this violent path you're own. This whole movement needs to back away.

Here's God's strategy. Ephesians 6:10-17

10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.

11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:​

The only way to win is on the spiritual plane. And I don't just mean prayer. I mean actually adopting and following the Bible most of us claim to believe in. Jesus said that Satan is the one who comes to kill and destroy. Jesus came to bring life and bring it more abundantly.

Brutal, of course, but always remember, I didn't call down the thunder here.

Worse than brutal. STUPID AND COUNTER PRODUCTIVE!

I'll pick sides and maneuver as I see fit to best protect my interests.

The only side that I want to be on is the side of Jesus Christ. He is the one who said "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God." TBH I shouldn't even say that I would go after someone who killed one of my sons. But I'm not there yet in my Christian walk.

I'll grant you that point, it seems valid...maybe there are no "good" guys in this scenario.

But as I noted before, there is no law or justice in this nation anymore.

So, I'm left with no choice but to choose what defends my points.

That's were faith comes in. "My help comes from the Lord who made heaven and earth." Christians took one helluva blow in the #nashvillemassacre." You now how easy it would be for Christians to retaliate in kind? But that would give the enemy the propaganda victory he wants so bad. (And by the enemy I mean lucifer.) If God is our commander in chief then we need to fight this war His way, not ours. And if we aren't going to follow God then what's this all even about anyway?

Oh yeah, I realize that...it's mostly all fantasy, but still a good tale.

The whole story of Frank Nitti in the movie was all bull$#@! as well.

I hear ya. I can't think of a movie Sean Connery was in that I didn't like.

 

[jmdrake]

Whoopdy-friggin-do. This is called a discussion forum, not a hive-mind forum.Whoopdy-friggin-do. This is called a discussion forum, not a hive-mind forum.

LOL. Says the coward that tried to call me out for not going along with the general mindset of the forum on this issue and said it showed my "mettle." You clearly don't even know what that word means.

 

[jmdrake]

LOL. I had watched that video multiple times, but it's not very close up or a good view on either screen. At first I thought that his car was the one with the dashcam, but that didn't make any sense. So then I thought that his car was the dark sedan that was in frame right from the start on the right side of the split screen. People were walking past, and I assumed that the person with the rifle had walked up to his driver side window, opposite the camera position, where you can't see what the people were doing. I also saw all the people run over there, but you couldn't really tell where they were running to exactly.

So now I take it that the car making the fast right turn as seen from the left side of the screen (dashcam), was Daniel Perry. That makes a huge difference. My bad on that!



Now, I can tell he did make a fast right turn, and honked his horn. That is a bit provocative. But did he hit anybody? I can't tell from that video. I do know that the mob rushed his car at that point, and I can only assume that is when the guy with the rifle walked up to his driver door. From honk to shooting was only about ten seconds, but in that ten seconds, the mob had rushed his vehicle. We can't tell what the guy with the rifle was doing during that time.



Now that I hopefully have the correct vehicle, you are correct, it doesn't look like he was stopped or surrounded before he made the fast right turn.

I can't tell from the video if his car actually touched anyone. The case could be made that during the ten seconds between honking and shots fired, that multiple people from the crowd had started to behave in a threatening manner, even banging on his car or windows. The video is too far away and at the wrong angles to tell. All we can tell from the video is the fast right turn, the honk, the crowd running towards the vehicles, and shots fired. I believe those are the facts that can be had from those two angles.

Thank you for that honest reassessment of the video. Where you and [MENTION=35009]ClaytonB[/MENTION] are still off is the false point that it matters whether or not Daniel the violent racist Marxist Perry hit any pedestrians. 1) Assault doesn't require contact. All it requires is that one puts someone else in reasonable fear of imminent contact that is harmful or offensive. If I illegally drive my car right at you I have assaulted you period. 2) Daniel the violent racist Marxist Perry had already announced his intentions to kill protesters and said he could kill protesters and get away with it.

We keep talking about Perry. How about the crowd? If that had been a group of Ron Paul marchers do you think after some arsehole illegally turn and ran at the crowd that nobody would have confronted the car just because nobody got hit? Because I don't think that. Remember when Rand was running for senate the first time and some jackass went up and put a sign in Rand's face and one of us threw him on the ground and put a foot on his neck? What Perry did was TEN TIMES WORSE AND MORE PROVOCATIVE than that. Again, look at the Texas self defense statute. To claim self defense you cannot be the one who provoked the violent situation. Daniel Perry provoked the violent situation and based on his own social media posts he was someone who wanted to provoke a violent situation. Daniel Perry is a threat to himself and others. He is no friend of liberty. He should be locked up.

 

[ClaytonB]

1) Assault doesn't require contact.

Duh.

All it requires is that one puts someone else in reasonable fear of imminent contact that is harmful or offensive. If I illegally drive my car right at you I have assaulted you period.

If Perry had been trying to "assault" the crowd of marchers (which he could not have even seen before taking the right-hand), he would not have navigated between them, and he would not have come to a complete stop as soon as he could not proceed without hitting someone. It's not just that he didn't hit them, it's that he stopped and remained stopped! If he were trying to threaten the protesters with his vehicle, he would have moved the vehicle forward towards them, even if they were blocking him. He didn't do that which disproves the entire picture of Perry as being there to threaten/assault people. Your arguments are self-refuting!

2) Daniel the violent racist Marxist Perry had already announced his intentions to kill protesters and said he could kill protesters and get away with it.

100% irrelevant, and hearsay.

To claim self defense you cannot be the one who provoked the violent situation. Daniel Perry provoked the violent situation

False. Perry did not cause Foster to lift his rifle. And while he came around the corner quickly and honked, this is an understandable mistake that can happen when a driver is trying to navigate through a downtown area where there is a disruption resulting from a disorganized and aggressive protest/riot. Perhaps Foster misinterpreted Perry's actions as dangerous/threatening (quite possible) but, even if he did, this was a tragic miscalculation that cost him his life and this can be clearly seen from the dashcam video. Perry was not running anyone down or committing vehicular assault. It's right there on the tape for all to see.

and based on his own social media posts he was someone who wanted to provoke a violent situation.

His personal expression of his political views (in hyperbolic language) are irrelevant and are simply protected free speech. I will change my mind if someone can produce a post/message where Perry said on that day, "Tonight, I'm going to go kill protestors, and I'll get away with it", without indication of irony or satire. In that case, such a message would be causally connected, and relevant. Everything else is just prosecutorial smear-campaigning and any competent judge should have thrown it out.

 

[jmdrake]

Duh.



If Perry had been trying to "assault" the crowd of marchers (which he could not have even seen before taking the right-hand), he would not have navigated between them, and he would not have come to a complete stop as soon as he could not proceed without hitting someone. It's not just that he didn't hit them, it's that he stopped and remained stopped! If he were trying to threaten the protesters with his vehicle, he would have moved the vehicle forward towards them, even if they were blocking him. He didn't do that which disproves the entire picture of Perry as being there to threaten/assault people. Your arguments are self-refuting!



100% irrelevant, and hearsay.



False. Perry did not cause Foster to lift his rifle. And while he came around the corner quickly and honked, this is an understandable mistake that can happen when a driver is trying to navigate through a downtown area where there is a disruption resulting from a disorganized and aggressive protest/riot. Perhaps Foster misinterpreted Perry's actions as dangerous/threatening (quite possible) but, even if he did, this was a tragic miscalculation that cost him his life and this can be clearly seen from the dashcam video. Perry was not running anyone down or committing vehicular assault. It's right there on the tape for all to see.



His personal expression of his political views (in hyperbolic language) are irrelevant and are simply protected free speech. I will change my mind if someone can produce a post/message where Perry said on that day, "Tonight, I'm going to go kill protestors, and I'll get away with it", without indication of irony or satire. In that case, such a message would be causally connected, and relevant. Everything else is just prosecutorial smear-campaigning and any competent judge should have thrown it out.

You know ChatGPT is more intelligent than you. Daniel Perry's online are NOT irrelevant and would not be kept out as hearsay as they are a statement made by someone against his own interest. It's funny to see non lawyers try to do lawyer speak as you almost always get it wrong. Even if all you ever did was watch a crime drama you would know that "Anything you say can and will be used in a court of law." There is no evidence besides Perry's own statement that Foster raised his rifle. There are multiple witnesses that said Foster did NOT raise his rifle. Perry is not credible as a witness because prior to the incident he said that he wanted to shoot protesters and that he could shoot protesters and get away with it. He broke the law by running a red light and turning into a crosswalk with pedestrians in it. In doing so, especially with his pre encounter statements, he committed assault with a deadly weapon.

Edit: And here's some free legal education on hearsay.

(3) Statement Against Interest. A statement that:

(A) a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would have made only if the person believed it to be true because, when made, it was so contrary to the declarant’s proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the declarant’s claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability; and

(B) is supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness, if it is offered in a criminal case as one that tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability.​

Daniel Perry's prior statements are relevant, trustworthy (they were his social media accounts after all) and they exposed him to criminal liability (showed motive to provoke a violent encounter). This was a solid prosecution. Don't go around saying you can kill someone and get away with it and then expect to get away with it. Or as you would say "Duh."

 

[ClaytonB]

Daniel Perry's online are NOT irrelevant and would not be kept out as hearsay as they are a statement made by someone against his own interest.

I can't even parse this sentence.

It's funny to see non lawyers try to do lawyer speak as you almost always get it wrong. Even if all you ever did was watch a crime drama you would know that "Anything you say can and will be used in a court of law."

That is merely the police/DA's perspective, it is not the court's stance. Only admissible evidence can be admitted. The defense has an opportunity to exclude all non-admissible evidence. Keep watching your crime dramas, maybe you'll eventually glean that little tidbit of the rules of court procedure...

There is no evidence besides Perry's own statement that Foster raised his rifle.

... and there is no credible evidence against, or internal contradiction in Perry's statement... so it stands (that's how testimony works, even the defendant's own testimony!)

There are multiple witnesses that said Foster did NOT raise his rifle.

The courts have long rejected the idea that a mobster can testify on behalf of one of his buddies. The "testimony" of Antifa "witnesses" is meaningless. Of course thugs will say the other thug was 100% obeying the law at every point. So what?

Perry is not credible as a witness

He's not a witness, he's the defendant! As such, he is granted many protections under criminal procedure that are not granted to witnesses, in particular, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

because prior to the incident he said that he wanted to shoot protesters

So what? At that time, Antifa were turning the entire country upside down and anyone who was opposed to that BS was likely saying the same kinds of things. Hell, I wanted to shoot protesters, even though I knew better than to admit anything like that, for exactly this kind of reason. Nevertheless, there is no relevancy between these communications and the case itself unless those communications demonstrate a particular intent to commit a homicide, which they don't! Please, show me the Facebook post where Perry said, "I'm going to go shoot a protester tonight and get away with it."

He broke the law by running a red light

Rolling right-hand turn on red. The fact that you feel compelled to massage every single fact in this case shows that you're carrying water for somebody. On the Soros-dole? Or are we just communicating with a GPU running ChatGPT in some data-center?

and turning into a crosswalk with pedestrians in it.

If there were no protest going on, and if a police cruiser were positioned where the dashcam vehicle was, and Perry executed that maneuver, he would surely have been cited for a traffic violation. But I doubt he would have been charged with a misdemeanor. No one can dispute he "broke the law", but come on, we all know there's a difference between jaywalking and a bank heist, even though both are equally "breaking the law". Stop being ridiculous, it's really embarrassing.

In doing so, especially with his pre encounter statements, he committed assault with a deadly weapon.

And yet amazingly, he is not convicted of that. Seems you know the law and the case better than the DA and the jury...

Daniel Perry's prior statements are relevant, trustworthy (they were his social media accounts after all) and they exposed him to criminal liability (showed motive to provoke a violent encounter). This was a solid prosecution. Don't go around saying you can kill someone and get away with it and then expect to get away with it. Or as you would say "Duh."

Please refrain from assaulting the board with copy/pasta from Wikipedia... it's just not how court procedure works at all. The judge is the "referee"/"umpire" of the criminal case, and the judge makes the final call on whether something is admissible or not, based on a variety of considerations, including the rules of court procedure, the technical arguments offered by the counselors for both parties, and the all-round "protection of integrity of the case", meaning, with consideration to how their judgment-call will affect a future appeal of the case. So, no, you don't get to copy/pasta an exception to hearsay rules based on the interests of Perry in his statements and then conclude that this was not a kangaroo-court proceeding. This entire case is 100.0% politically motivated and they are crucifying Perry for political purposes. Perry's conviction is a gangland warning from Antifa/Soros to anyone who crosses their path in the future: do not dare defend yourself from the Soros Thugs or you will go to jail!!

 

[jmdrake]

I can't even parse this sentence.

That's because you're not very bright.

That is merely the police/DA's perspective, it is not the court's stance. Only admissible evidence can be admitted. The defense has an opportunity to exclude all non-admissible evidence. Keep watching your crime dramas, maybe you'll eventually glean that little tidbit of the rules of court procedure...

LOL at you linking to Wikipedia, then you stupidly later falsely claim I was "copy pasting" from Wikipedia when Wikipedia was not my source. Dude you are ignorant beyond belief.

Only admissible evidence can be admitted? Duh! And a witnesses prior statements that go to his state of mind are admissible evidence. Hell, Mark Furhman had to testify about using the n-word!

... and there is no credible evidence against, or internal contradiction in Perry's statement... so it stands (that's how testimony works, even the defendant's own testimony!)

What are you even babbling about? You are clueless.

The courts have long rejected the idea that a mobster can testify on behalf of one of his buddies. The "testimony" of Antifa "witnesses" is meaningless. Of course thugs will say the other thug was 100% obeying the law at every point. So what?

You're just making shyt up now.

He's not a witness, he's the defendant! As such, he is granted many protections under criminal procedure that are not granted to witnesses, in particular, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

When you testify at your own trial you become a defense witness moron. There was nobody other than Perry to testify that Foster raised the AK47 at him. There is a reason why most defendants don't take the stand. They open themselves up to cross examination. Perry's texts were admitted against him as they should have been! Your whole defense of Perry seems to be that 1) everybody at the protest was antifa (no evidence of that) 2) antifa has already been judged to be a criminal organization (could be but they haven't been judged that way) and 3) members of a criminal organization are not allowed to testify as prosecution witnesses, which is just false and utterly stupid! Even if all of thee crap you are spewing were true, you would be arguing that a member of MS-13 couldn't testify against a member of Los Zetas in a murder trial. Utter and total crap.

I'm sure your going to try to come back with more made up pseudo legal nonsense because you seem to be mentally unstable. Anyone with half a brain has figured this own by now. Daniel Perry is scum and not deserving of further discussion. I let you and your mental delusions have the last word.

Edit: And for the record, this is the "hearsay" testimony that you falsely claim was inadmissible.


https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2023-04-07/might-have-to-kill-a-few-people/

The testimony confirming Perry's anger toward protesters came on the third day of the trial as prosecutors displayed text messages and social media comments showing that he thought about killing them. "I might have to kill a few people on my way to work, they are rioting outside my apartment complex," Perry wrote to a friend in June of 2020. "I might go to Dallas to shoot looters," he wrote on another occasion. Perry also encouraged violence in a variety of social media posts.

In addition, Perry speculated about how he might get away with such a killing – by claiming self-defense, as he is now doing. Prosecutors presented a Facebook Messen*ger chat between Perry and a friend, Michael Holcomb, which occurred two weeks before he shot Foster. In it, Perry argued that shooting protesters was legal if it was in self-defense. Holcomb, who was called to the stand Wednesday afternoon, seemed to try to talk Perry down. "Aren't you a CDL holder too?" he asked, referring to the men's licenses to carry concealed handguns. "We went through the same training ... Shooting after creating an event where you have to shoot, is not a good shoot."​

Sorry dude, but it was 100% admissible.

 

[ClaytonB]

When you testify at your own trial you become a defense witness moron.

Duh. But Perry's testimony in his own case -- whether given as witness testimony, interrogation, deposition, or in the defense filings themselves, stands unless credible evidence contradicts it, or he contradicts himself. Neither of those happened. And no, I don't agree with the kangaroo court permitting Antifa thugs to testify that Foster did not raise his weapon. That is not credible testimony and no self-respecting court of law would permit such nonsense. I'll believe an Antifa thug's testimony about what really happened the moment he names which of them criminally fired at Perry's vehicle as he was driving away. Won't hold my breath, though...

1) everybody at the protest was antifa (no evidence of that)

Antifa is the intelligence/operative arm of BLM and all the other Bug-Eater brownshirt groups. I've watched hours and hours of livestream footage of these goons. They are trained in SOF urban/riot tactics deployed by CIA/NATO-aligned militants in 2014 at the Euromaidan, and pioneered by the CIA through Otpor! and its many color revolutions. The useless-idiots marching among them are prominently visible in the footage... obviously, those people have nothing to do with the actual event that occurred. But the operatives are equally obvious, especially once the gunfire begins.

2) antifa has already been judged to be a criminal organization

They are an illegal and criminal fifth-column that is interfering in domestic US politics, externally supported by foreign intelligence training, funding, and logistical and operational C&C. They are the WEF's brownshirts. If you can't figure that out just by reading the headlines with a critical eye, I don't know what to tell you. Learn things, I guess.

(could be but they haven't been judged that way)

Yes, that's part of the trick. This is why Antifa and its guardian angels in the FBI and the Democrat party have studiously prevented it from being categorized as a terrorist organization.

3) members of a criminal organization are not allowed to testify as prosecution witnesses, which is just false and utterly stupid!

If I'm charged with murder, my Mom cannot be a sole alibi that I was "at home all that evening". That's just not credible witness testimony and no self-respecting judge would allow a defense attorney to pass it off as such. Foster's Antifa-thug buddies saying he didn't raise his rifle is exactly the same degree of credibility: zero.

"I might have to kill a few people on my way to work, they are rioting outside my apartment complex," Perry wrote to a friend in June of 2020. "I might go to Dallas to shoot looters," he wrote on another occasion. Perry also encouraged violence in a variety of social media posts.

To cite these statements is to ipso facto admit that I am right. Even a CCP kangaroo court would be too ashamed to present such evidence in a political show-trial. Beyond belief that this court passes as an actual court. I don't understand why Texas does not dismantle the entire branch of the court system Perry was tried in, here, it is obvious that they are wholly detached from reality. They should be disbanded and their jurisdiction assigned to some other branch of the courts that still has some shred of credibility left. With this case, the judge and the yahoo courts he belongs to have poured gasoline over themselves and committed self-immolation, as far as I'm concerned.

two weeks before he shot Foster. In it, Perry argued that shooting protesters was legal if it was in self-defense. Holcomb, who was called to the stand Wednesday afternoon, seemed to try to talk Perry down. "Aren't you a CDL holder too?" he asked, referring to the men's licenses to carry concealed handguns. "We went through the same training ... Shooting after creating an event where you have to shoot, is not a good shoot."

Again, unless Perry said, "I'm going to ... go shoot a protester" it's just irrelevant. People have lots of conversations about lots of things. That was a hot-topic at the time, Perry was clearly opposed to Antifa rioting and burning down US cities, as many Americans at that time were (including me), and he expressed his opposition in a private conversation.

Shooting an Antifa thug "protester" is indeed legal if it is in self-defense. To all appearances, this is what happened in Perry's case. I have not pulled all the case records, so perhaps there is something I've overlooked but the "slam-dunk" evidence/testimony cited in the various news articles is weak-sauce, at best. It's a political show-trial in a kangaroo court whose purpose is to send a message from the Soros Antifa-Mafia to the country: Mess with us, you'll go to jail.