Austin: Libertarian BLM Protester Shot Dead

[RonWrightor]

Thank you for that honest reassessment of the video. Where you and @ClaytonB 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.

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

 

[Occam's Banana]

[...] That is not credible testimony and no self-respecting court of law would permit such nonsense. [...]

It is not (and should not be) a judge's job to decide whether witness testimony is credible.

It is a judge's job to decide whether witness testimony is legally admissible.

It is the jury's job to assess the credibility of witness testimony, and to account for this in their deliberations.

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. [...]

Alibis are not inadmissible merely because they lack credibility.

Any judge who disallows your mom's testimony that you were "at home all that evening" merely because she was your only alibi ought not to be a judge in the first place.

Again, it is the jury's job to assess the credibility of witness testimony, not the judge's.

 

[jmdrake]

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

I'm not sure what you are even trying to say. But suffice it to say that the in every criminal court in the U.S., social media texts that tend to show premeditation by a defendant are admissible as evidence. That's why any criminal defense attorney worth spit will ask his client to give him all such relevant evidence before going to trial. I got burned on that once. It was an order of protection case. My idiot client and sent his baby's mamma a KIK message saying he was going to shoot up her car and he didn't tell me. Obviously I lost. (I avoid criminal defense work like the plague.) Any lawyer that would tell you that Daniel Perry's social media posts talking about wanting to shoot protesters and thinking he could shoot a protester and get away with it is not admissible should not be a lawyer.

 

[jmdrake]

It is not (and should not be) a judge's job to decide whether witness testimony is credible.

It is a judge's job to decide whether witness testimony is legally admissible.

It is the jury's job to assess the credibility of witness testimony, and to account for this in their deliberations.



Alibis are not inadmissible merely because they lack credibility.

Any judge who disallows your mom's testimony that you were "at home all that evening" merely because she was your only alibi ought not to be a judge in the first place.

Again, it is the jury's job to assess the credibility of witness testimony, not the judge's.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again.

At least somebody gets it.

 

[ClaytonB]

It is not (and should not be) a judge's job to decide whether witness testimony is credible.

It is a judge's job to decide whether witness testimony is legally admissible.

It is the jury's job to assess the credibility of witness testimony, and to account for this in their deliberations.

Nothing I said contradicts any of this.

I can't remotely diagnose which part of the (in)justice system failed here, but the point is that the judge presiding over this case is the one ultimately responsible for a fair (just) trial, that is, preserving the integrity of the process itself. The prosecution ran roughshod over Perry's rights while his attorney apparently did nothing about it, and the jury apparently sleep-walked into a conviction on a case that is obvious political persecution and railroading. I mean "obvious" on a CCP scale of obvious. I realize that a lot of regular posters on the forum apparently don't see it that way... and the most I can say to that is "wait and see". You haven't even begun to imagine how deep the rot really goes.

Alibis are not inadmissible merely because they lack credibility.

Yeah, I understand that. But what testimony enters the record as a matter-of-record is one of the things that the judge is ultimately refereeing. If I did present my Mom as my sole alibi, and the judge prevented the prosecution from pointing out the absurdity and lack of credibility of using my Mom as a sole alibi, that would be substantial grounds for appeal by the prosecution and they surely would appeal and I would expect that they would win a re-trial.

Again, it is the jury's job to assess the credibility of witness testimony, not the judge's.

The judge determines, as a matter of procedure, what testimony can enter the record, whether verbal or written, based on a broad array of procedural considerations. My argument is that (a) the defense ought to have objected to this testimony on the reasoning I've given here (dressed up in whatever fancy legal-ese they get paid the big bucks to speak) and (b) the judge should not have allowed it upon hearing those reasons. And if the judge ruled against the defense on this, it should be appealed and overturned on that basis.

Agree or not, that's my argument.

 

[ClaytonB]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again.

At least somebody gets it.

The Truth cannot be decided by popularity, or lack thereof. Even if 7.7 billion people on planet earth agree that 2+2=5... guess what, it's still equal to 4.

 

[Occam's Banana]

[...] That is not credible testimony and no self-respecting court of law would permit such nonsense. [...]

It is not (and should not be) a judge's job to decide whether witness testimony is credible.

It is a judge's job to decide whether witness testimony is legally admissible.

It is the jury's job to assess the credibility of witness testimony, and to account for this in their deliberations.

Nothing I said contradicts any of this.

Of course something you said contradicts this. That is what prompted my reply in the first place.

The assertion that "that is not credible testimony and no self-respecting court of law would permit such nonsense" can reasonably be interpreted only as "testimony that is not credible should not be permitted in any self-respecting court of law". (If you misspoke and that is not what you actually meant, then fair enough - but it is what you actually said.)

 

[ClaytonB]

Of course something you said contradicts this. That is what prompted my reply in the first place.

The assertion that "that is not credible testimony and no self-respecting court of law would permit such nonsense" can reasonably be interpreted only as "testimony that is not credible should not be permitted in any self-respecting court of law". (If you misspoke and that is not what you actually meant, then fair enough - but it is what you actually said.)

I already walked you through the argument I was originally making, so I'll spare you a reprise of that. Not just anyone can be permitted to testify in a legal case, and not just any testimony can be permitted. I was not using "credible" in the jargon sense in that particular sentence, i.e. "admissible but not credible"... I just mean plain-old not credible. The judge is to referee the integrity of the case, and this case lacks any integrity whatsoever. My hope is that an actually competent lawyer appeals it and it gets thrown out without the possibility of retrial under double-jeopardy.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I was not using "credible" in the jargon sense in that particular sentence, i.e. "admissible but not credible"... I just mean plain-old not credible.

I don't understand what you mean by a "jargon sense" of credibility. But it doesn't really matter - there is no relevant distinction to made here between "jargon" not-credible and "plain-old" not-credible. Judges have no business debarring testimony merely because (he thinks) it is "not credible" in whatever sense.

However preposterously incredible any given testimony might be, it is not up to the judge or the court to decide whether to permit it, but only up to the jury whether to believe it. Judges may properly prevent such testimony from being presented only if it is legally inadmissible (as in the case of simple hearsay, for example). And even then, credibility as such - and in whatever sense - is still not a factor ("credible" hearsay, for example, is also not permitted).

 

[ClaytonB]

I don't understand what you mean by a "jargon sense" of credibility. But it doesn't really matter - there is no relevant distinction to made here between "jargon" not-credible and "plain-old" not-credible. Judges have no business debarring testimony merely because (he thinks) it is "not credible" in whatever sense.

Right, but you're simply not understanding the argument I'm making and, at this point, it's a pretty low-ROI point. Please consult my post above -- the judge is ultimately responsible for refereeing what witnesses and what testimony from those witnesses is permitted. If Perry's defense was competent, they would have objected to this testimony and, if they had, then the judge must have overruled that objection. Either Perry's defense was incompetent, or the judge was not properly protecting the integrity of the case. Either way, it should be appealed by an actually competent lawyer in a non-kangaroo court and thrown out. This trial is transparently political. Perhaps you don't see that, yet. As I have warned already, buckle up, because this ride isn't even close to being over...

However preposterously incredible any given testimony might be, it is not up to the judge or the court to decide whether to permit it,

This is not correct. Either side may (non-trivially) object to any evidence or testimony on procedural grounds and, if the testimony/evidence in question does not meet the standards of criminal procedure, the judge must sustain that objection. If they do not, and it is appealed, this will be a basis for retrial or even having the entire case thrown out.

but only up to the jury whether to believe it.

If the testimony is procedurally correct, yes. If Perry's counsel failed to point out the conflict-of-interest, or if the prosecution objected to this and the judge sustained it, then the case can be appealed on that grounds. One way or another, you can be quite sure this is just a political show-trial.

Judges may properly prevent such testimony from being presented only if it is legally inadmissible (as in the case of simple hearsay, for example). And even then, credibility as such - and in whatever sense - is still not a factor ("credible" hearsay, for example, is also not permitted).

Yep, got it. The distinction is not lost on me, and wasn't in my previous post. You're getting hung up on the word "credible" and simply not paying attention to the substance of my argument. But as I said, it just seems to be a low ROI discussion at this point.

 

[Occam's Banana]

This is not correct. Either side may (non-trivially) object to any evidence or testimony on procedural grounds and, if the testimony/evidence in question does not meet the standards of criminal procedure, the judge must sustain that objection. If they do not, and it is appealed, this will be a basis for retrial or even having the entire case thrown out.

It is correct. The mere (lack of) "credibility" of testimony has nothing to do with whether it is (in)admissible, or (un)objectionable on grounds of procedure, relevance, etc. - nor should it.

IOW: You had better have some objection other than just "Your Honor, this testimony is not credible!" - and if you actually do have some other such objection, then there should be no need to make any reference at all to the testimony's credibility (or lack thereof).

You're getting hung up on the word "credible" and simply not paying attention to the substance of my argument.

I'm not getting "hung up" on anything. You explicitly asserted that testimony that is "not credible" should not be permitted in any "self-respecting court". I objected to this, after which you incorrectly claimed not to have said anything that contradicted my objection. All this other business about "jargon" and "procedural correctness" and the political motivations of the prosecution and so on is entirely orthogonal to that particular matter (regardless of how relevant such things might be with respect to other aspects of the case).

But as I said, it just seems to be a low ROI discussion at this point.

*shrug* Then stop investing in it.

 

[ClaytonB]

I'm not getting "hung up" on anything. You explicitly asserted that testimony that is "not credible" should not be permitted in any "self-respecting court". I objected to this,

The testimony of an Antifa thug, that another Antifa thug "didn't raise their rifle" should be thrown out of any self-respecting court. It's like asking Ray Epps what happened on Jan 6th -- an obvious waste-of-time. Whatever words he speaks will have no relevance to anything related to Jan 6th and should be excluded from any court record. He can swear on a Bible till his face turns blue, but so what? He's still going to lie and you and I both know it.

*shrug* Then stop investing in it.

Have the last word...

 

[Anti Federalist]

And if we aren't going to follow God then what's this all even about anyway?

Remember what Malone (Connery) said, in that scene I posted, right after explaining how to "get" Capone to Elliot Ness?

Knowing full well that he was signing his own death warrant by assisting the feds, he reconciled it to himself by saying "well, God hates a coward".

Maybe our purpose, God's purpose, is for us to fight in the here and now, we've been given every single tool we need: men, arms, the moral high ground along with legal and historical precedent.

But we are soft and fat and lazy and decadent.

That is the only thing stopping us from putting an end to all this, and I am not just talking about pedophile queeers and all the rest of the assorted Marxist filth.

Let's quote Sean Connery again: remember the scene in Indiana Jones III, where he slaps Harrison Ford for blasphemy and explains that the search for the Holy Grail is not about them anymore but a race against evil, to prevent the "armies of darkness from marching over the face of the earth".

That's what we are engaged in.

And it may be demons acting out in flesh bodies, but they are using man made tools to plot our extinction.

This is the 900 pound gorilla in the room that nobody is talking about: we are two seconds away from a souped up man made plague germ being released accidently or on purpose and killing every last one of us.

Perhaps our purpose is to find the stones to physically stamp out the people and political philosophy of who are going to do this to mankind.

To God's creation.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Have the last word...

Okay ...

The testimony of an Antifa thug, that another Antifa thug "didn't raise their rifle" should be thrown out of any self-respecting court. It's like asking Ray Epps what happened on Jan 6th -- an obvious waste-of-time. Whatever words he speaks will have no relevance to anything related to Jan 6th and should be excluded from any court record. He can swear on a Bible till his face turns blue, but so what? He's still going to lie and you and I both know it.

So much for your pretense of being opposed to "kangaroo courts".

 

[ClaytonB]

//

OK, but look at your own avatar: timing is everything...

 

[jmdrake]

Remember what Malone (Connery) said, in that scene I posted, right after explaining how to "get" Capone to Elliot Ness?

Knowing full well that he was signing his own death warrant by assisting the feds, he reconciled it to himself by saying "well, God hates a coward".

Maybe our purpose, God's purpose, is for us to fight in the here and now, we've been given every single tool we need: men, arms, the moral high ground along with legal and historical precedent.

But we are soft and fat and lazy and decadent.

That is the only thing stopping us from putting an end to all this, and I am not just talking about pedophile queeers and all the rest of the assorted Marxist filth.

Let's quote Sean Connery again: remember the scene in Indiana Jones III, where he slaps Harrison Ford for blasphemy and explains that the search for the Holy Grail is not about them anymore but a race against evil, to prevent the "armies of darkness from marching over the face of the earth".

That's what we are engaged in.

And it may be demons acting out in flesh bodies, but they are using man made tools to plot our extinction.

This is the 900 pound gorilla in the room that nobody is talking about: we are two seconds away from a souped up man made plague germ being released accidently or on purpose and killing every last one of us.

Perhaps our purpose is to find the stones to physically stamp out the people and political philosophy of who are going to do this to mankind.

To God's creation.

Yeah....that's all well and good when you're 100% sure that you are 100% on the right side. But....you're not. You might have met Foster at a Ron Paul rally, drank a beer and been good friends with him. Daniel Perry might have been one of the people throwing Ron Paul delegates out of the Iowa caucuses. You don't know! All you know is that while you agree with the need to stop police brutality, you don't agree with BLM and while you aren't 100% in agreement with Trump and MAGA your more aligned with them than the alternative. That's fine when you're going to hold your nose a vote for the "lesser of two evils." It's not fine when your initiating violence or going along with someone who initiated violence. Yes God expects us to be courageous, but often it takes more courage to "stand still and know" that He is God than it does to whip out your sword and lop the high priest servant's ear off. Did you watch the videos I posted on Vietnam and Rhodesia? Body counts are poor counter insurgent strategies. Always have been. Ask yourself this. How much do you think you've advanced the cause of liberty by trying to convince me that it's okay for Daniel Perry to drive into a crowd and later shoot into a crowd that I just told you my sons could have been in? If you don't understand that's a fools errand on your part then you don't understand human nature. By contrast every day I'm debating totally different people on the Newsbreak app on the 2nd amendment, the ridiculousness of the COVID dictatorship, why it's not loving to allow kids to castrate themselves under some twisted notion of "parental rights", explaining to people that Sweden has banned puberty blockers and that Dylan Mulvaney is to women what Ted Dansen in black face was to African Americans. And...I'm seeing results. I started doing that during my last hiatus from this place. It's a lot more health than cat herding at RPF. You want to really make a dent for liberty? "Go and do thou likewise."

 

[jmdrake]

Okay ...



So much for your pretense of being opposed to "kangaroo courts".

Principles are a terrible thing to waste.

 

[ClaytonB]

Principles are a terrible thing to waste.

So I take it you think that Ray Epps might have something admissible to say in a court case against a Jan 6th attendee? How is it so hard for you to understand that there is such a thing as a compromised witness?? And yes, as far as I am concerned, all Antifa thugs are compromised witnesses. You can call that "lack of principles" but you're just playing into The Narrative (maybe that bothers you, maybe it doesn't). Either way, that's what it is. The entire purpose of Antifa surrounding itself with useful idiots is so that those idiots can act as "witnesses" to support the Antifa thugs when they commit crimes. Do these people look like they're trying to operate within any construction of legality???:



What do you suppose is the purpose of all those black umbrellas? To stay dry?!?



You're the one who wants to drag the whole world into the Perry case, so let's drag in the actually relevant rest of the world -- Antifa has tuned its tactics for use against its hallucinatory "fascist enemy", which are really just FBI puppet-groups like Patriot Front, PB/PP/etc. The primary purpose of the black umbrellas is to shield from cameras (including their own) while they commit a felony, usually a stabbing (in Portland-area clashes, this is usually what ended up happening). The umbrella guys generally stick pretty close but when their designated operators prepare to commit a crime (likely real intelligence/SOF-trained assets), they swarm into a tight group and form a 360-degree camera shield around the operators so they can commit the felony, then they disperse in every direction like cockroaches. It is the most cowardly imaginable bullshit, and it is fine-tuned for compatibility with the court system. Psychotically leftist havens like Portland and Seattle provide heavy cover in the form of a legal system that is wholly captured by the Soros bloc. Mess with Antifa in Portland, you'll get stabbed, then arrested and charged for "assaulting" the very Antifa thugs who stabbed you. Not only will they walk free, they'll show up in court and testify whatever shit they decide to make up against you, and it will stick.

But this is the problem that the Perry/Foster incident highlights: these "urban battlefield" tactics are being deployed in civilian space and non-combatants, like Perry, can end up in the crossfire. That is how Foster died. Foster was participating in a system that is war-gamed for a Euromaidan-style conflict (and supremely effective), but he came up against an uninvolved civilian who happened to be armed, and defended himself, and he died as a result. No matter what other errors Perry made that night, the facts show that he was justified to defend himself, and he did.

 

[ClaytonB]

But this is the problem that the Perry/Foster incident highlights: these "urban battlefield" tactics are being deployed in civilian space and non-combatants, like Perry, can end up in the crossfire. That is how Foster died. Foster was participating in a system that is war-gamed for a Euromaidan-style conflict (and supremely effective), but he came up against an uninvolved civilian who happened to be armed, and defended himself, and he died as a result. No matter what other errors Perry made that night, the facts show that he was justified to defend himself, and he did.

Dr. Grande believes that Perry was guilty "in reality", but not guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". He might be right about the first part, but only God can know for certain. The messages that Perry sent long before this incident indicate that Perry had strong anti-riot political views, and was pro-2A and likely had a flawed understanding of self-defense law. All the same, as Dr. Grande concedes, the evidence and testimony in the case fails to demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, that Perry intended to commit murder that night. And, from the standpoint of the courts, that's the only thing that actually matters. This case is political persecution, pure and simple.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Yeah....that's all well and good when you're 100% sure that you are 100% on the right side. But....you're not. You might have met Foster at a Ron Paul rally, drank a beer and been good friends with him. Daniel Perry might have been one of the people throwing Ron Paul delegates out of the Iowa caucuses. You don't know! All you know is that while you agree with the need to stop police brutality, you don't agree with BLM and while you aren't 100% in agreement with Trump and MAGA your more aligned with them than the alternative. That's fine when you're going to hold your nose a vote for the "lesser of two evils." It's not fine when your initiating violence or going along with someone who initiated violence. Yes God expects us to be courageous, but often it takes more courage to "stand still and know" that He is God than it does to whip out your sword and lop the high priest servant's ear off. Did you watch the videos I posted on Vietnam and Rhodesia? Body counts are poor counter insurgent strategies. Always have been. Ask yourself this. How much do you think you've advanced the cause of liberty by trying to convince me that it's okay for Daniel Perry to drive into a crowd and later shoot into a crowd that I just told you my sons could have been in? If you don't understand that's a fools errand on your part then you don't understand human nature. By contrast every day I'm debating totally different people on the Newsbreak app on the 2nd amendment, the ridiculousness of the COVID dictatorship, why it's not loving to allow kids to castrate themselves under some twisted notion of "parental rights", explaining to people that Sweden has banned puberty blockers and that Dylan Mulvaney is to women what Ted Dansen in black face was to African Americans. And...I'm seeing results. I started doing that during my last hiatus from this place. It's a lot more health than cat herding at RPF. You want to really make a dent for liberty? "Go and do thou likewise."

I know that there is no justice in the land anymore, and that the law is now lawless.

I have reviewed all the video posted of the shooting.

Nothing clearly shows whether Foster approached in a "high ready" state or not.

So my default position is to take the side of what still looks to me like a self defense move.

Given the same circumstances, as I understand them, I would have opened fire myself.

After it has come out that the Soros/Marxist DA tampered with witnesses and played shenanigans with grand jury testimony, I'm even more inclined to stick to that position.