Austin: Libertarian BLM Protester Shot Dead [Archive]

View Full Version : Austin: Libertarian BLM Protester Shot Dead

Pages : [1] 2

Brian4Liberty

07-26-2020, 02:25 PM

Garrett Foster: Austin Protester Shot Dead at Black Lives Matter Rally (https://heavy.com/news/2020/07/garrett-foster/)

Garrett Foster was identified as the man who died in a shooting at a Black Lives Matter protest in Austin, Texas on Saturday night, July 25, 2020. Foster was often at the protests in Austin. He was a Libertarian military veteran and witnesses said he was well-known among the activists participating in the protests in the city. Foster, 28, was shot dead while with his fiancee, Whitney Mitchell, a quadruple amputee who was in a wheelchair, his mother told ABC News.

Police have not yet publicly identified Foster as the victim in the shooting. The driver of a car who is believed to have shot Foster was taken into custody by Austin Police and is cooperating in the investigation, a police spokesperson said. He has not been identified. Foster’s mother, Sheila Foster, identified her son in an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

Witnesses and police said Foster was carrying a rifle. Open carry is legal in Texas. Police said he was approaching a car that had driven up to the crowd of protesters. Foster’s mother, Sheila Foster, told ABC News her son and his fiancee were taking part in the protest, when the driver, “got out of his car and started firing shots, and my son was shot three times.”
...
Tony Plohetski of the Austin American Statesman shared on Twitter that police believe there were two shooters, but Foster was not one of them. Officials said one shooter was the driver and the other was in the crowd and may have opened fire as the car was driving away.
...
Foster Was a Libertarian Who Supported Jo Jorgensen’s Candidacy

Foster wasn’t shy about sharing that he supported Jo Jorgensen’s presidential campaign. Jorgensen is running as the Libertarian candidate for President.

His last public post on Facebook shared a Libertarian quote about not trusting the government.
...
https://heavy.com/news/2020/07/garrett-foster/

1287269856757284864
https://twitter.com/TexasEmperor/status/1287269856757284864

TheCount

07-26-2020, 02:40 PM

It was not unusual for Garrett Foster to be at a protest against police brutality on a Saturday night. And it was not out of character for him to be armed as he marched.

Mr. Foster was carrying an AK-47 rifle as he joined a Black Lives Matter demonstration blocks from the State Capitol in Austin, Texas. Gun-rights supporters on both the left and the right often carry rifles at protests in Texas, a state whose liberal gun laws allow it.

Mr. Foster, wearing a black bandanna and a baseball cap, bumped into an independent journalist at the march on Saturday, and he spoke matter-of-factly about the weapon that was draped on a strap in front of him.

“They don’t let us march in the streets anymore, so I got to practice some of our rights,” Mr. Foster told the journalist, Hiram Gilberto Garcia, who was broadcasting the interview live on Periscope (https://www.pscp.tv/w/1YqJDpVaEPDJV). “If I use it against the cops, I’m dead,” he conceded.

Later that night, Mr. Foster was fatally shot, but not by the police. The authorities said he was killed by a motorist who had threatened protesters with his car.

The police and witnesses said the man in the car turned it aggressively toward the marchers, and Mr. Foster then approached it. The driver opened fire, shooting Mr. Foster, who was rushed to a hospital and was later pronounced dead.

...

Michael Capochiano, a witness, said he was marching with other demonstrators when he saw a motorist honk his horn and turn toward the crowd, forcing people to scatter.

“You could hear the wheels squealing from hitting the accelerator so fast,” said Mr. Capochiano, 53, a restaurant accountant. “I’m a little surprised that nobody got hit. He was driving at an aggressive speed into the crowd.”

The car came to a stop after turning from Fourth Street onto Congress Avenue and appeared to strike a traffic pylon. As people shouted angrily at the driver, Mr. Foster walked toward the car, with the muzzle of his rifle pointed downward, he said.

“He was not aiming the gun or doing anything aggressive with the gun,” Mr. Capochiano said. “He was not holding it in an aggressive manner.”

He added: “I’m not sure if there was much of an exchange of words. It wasn’t like there was any sort of verbal altercations. He wasn’t charging at the car. He was just walking over there.”

Mr. Capochiano, who was standing near the rear of the car, said he saw a handgun emerge from the driver’s window, and he heard multiple shots.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/26/us/austin-shooting-texas-protests.html

phill4paul

07-26-2020, 02:46 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/26/us/austin-shooting-texas-protests.html

Not giving a penny to that rag to get past their firewall. Lol.

Brian4Liberty

07-26-2020, 03:30 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/26/us/austin-shooting-texas-protests.html

Not giving a penny to that rag to get past their firewall. Lol.

There were eyewitness accounts on Twitter. Some were a bit different than the "official" news story. They said that people were around the vehicle beating on it, and the guy who got killed walked up to the driver's window and pointed at his own gun. They say the driver is co-operating with police, so no doubt his story is that he was under attack and a guy came up to his window with a gun in a threatening manner. People have shot drivers at these protests, so it will be hard to dismiss that fear as being unreasonable.

eleganz

07-26-2020, 03:57 PM

I guess he heard the great gospel of Jo and decided to be an "anti-racist" instead of a libertarian that just minded his own business, striving in the private sector.

Here is a screenshot of events prior to the shooting. There was a mob, they looked threatening, he had a gun and looked intent on using it (if I was the driver).

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/110227332_10157769637137060_7841636509595144062_n. jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=YAGWZjk_kh8AX_hJbna&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=22018e9231420cd0ffa19ac597682401&oe=5F44BF98

jkob

07-26-2020, 04:14 PM

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Don't point your gun at anything or anyone you're not prepared to shoot.

TheCount

07-26-2020, 04:23 PM

Not giving a penny to that rag to get past their firewall. Lol.

That's why I pasted so much of the article.

RPtotheWH

07-26-2020, 04:53 PM

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Don't point your gun at anything or anyone you're not prepared to shoot.

He shot 5 times and missed all of them. From the video it sounds like the 2nd volley was the driver returning fire.

RonZeplin

07-26-2020, 04:58 PM

Mission Accomplished, Kill Whitey. :redflag:

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fipatriot.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F02%2FTrump-Sharpton-Jackson-Don-King-James-Brown-1200x630.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Rainbow PUSH coalition. :down:

RPtotheWH

07-26-2020, 05:00 PM

Krugminator2

07-26-2020, 05:00 PM

Krugminator2

07-26-2020, 05:14 PM

Here is a screenshot of events prior to the shooting. There was a mob, they looked threatening, he had a gun and looked intent on using it (if I was the driver).

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/110227332_10157769637137060_7841636509595144062_n. jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=YAGWZjk_kh8AX_hJbna&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=22018e9231420cd0ffa19ac597682401&oe=5F44BF98

Yeah. Fuck that guy. If you are walking to a car like that, bye bye.

Krugminator2

07-26-2020, 05:21 PM

1287396378407243777

Love reading about these peaceful rioters.

Anti Globalist

07-26-2020, 05:47 PM

Did anyone tell that guy not to associate with the BLM movement? Could have saved his life.

eleganz

07-26-2020, 05:50 PM

Did anyone tell that guy not to associate with the BLM movement? Could have saved his life.

He was there everyday, already too far gone down the left libertarian SJW mindset. I think his wife played a big role, she was black and a quadruple amputee, so he was probably highly emotionally attached to a white knight type syndrome. Must save wife via BLM'ing.

Didn't help that the LP nominee put it out there that libertarians can't just be not racist, that we all must be anti-racist (or ANTIRA)

ThePaleoLibertarian

07-26-2020, 06:27 PM

Scumbag menaces a motorist with an angry mob while armed in a gun-heavy state and gets shot. Why should anyone care, again?

Some are claiming he shot first. He deserved everything he got. The libertarian movement is a complete and utter failure on every conceivable level, and the fact that people like this are attracted to it is yet another manifestation.

TheCount

07-26-2020, 07:10 PM

First of all, I always thought AK-47s were illegal outside of purchasing them from collectors.

It's not really an AK-47 just like an AR-15 isn't really an M16/M4.

If some guy in a bandana has an AK-47 and is approaching a car in a mob of people, he no longer needs to be living. That is an aggressive action.

There's been quite a surge in 2nd amendment / gun rights / gun ownership among the BLM crowd as a result of recent events.

I eagerly await the results of this change... it should be hilarious.

Swordsmyth

07-26-2020, 07:13 PM

Swordsmyth

07-26-2020, 07:13 PM

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/714522720892878918/735694741693530143/110287859_1474715709401126_8397961464911713174_o.j pg?width=616&height=616

69360

07-26-2020, 07:17 PM

How can one support BLM which is a Marxist organization and the Liberterian party? They are mutually exclusive IMO.

The LP presidential candidate is quite the enigma this year for that very reason.

Occam's Banana

07-26-2020, 07:28 PM

How can one support BLM which is a Marxist organization and the Liberterian party? They are mutually exclusive IMO.

The LP presidential candidate is quite the enigma this year for that very reason.

What enigma?

Politicians gonna pander. Wanna-be politicians gonna pander, too.

Mystery solved.

eleganz

07-26-2020, 07:36 PM

ON CAMERA

He said that if he used his AK47 against the cops hes (I'm) dead. Everyone else is too pssy to do anything about it

So basically hes only using it because he thinks people are afraid of him.

And thats why this libertarian got shot in the head.

https://twitter.com/joetalkshow/status/1287531927449358336?s=21

Anti Federalist

07-26-2020, 08:42 PM

First of all, I always thought AK-47s were illegal outside of purchasing them from collectors. I thought they had to be made before 1986 or something like that. Nothing positive comes from carrying something like that to a rio-errrr, protest. Unless the British are trying to quarter soldiers in your town, open carrying an AK-47 is retarded.

OK, let me break this down for you:

Fully automatic weapons have been heavily regulated and controlled since the 1934 National Firearms Act. In order not to violate the 2nd Amendment, the regulations are couched as "taxes". To legally purchase a full auto firearm, or many other weapons that are "Class III NFA" regulated (short barrel shotguns, grenade launchers and so on), you must pay a $200 tax, submit to background checks, ATF will open a file on you and monitor you for the rest of your life and fill out a mountain of paperwork and then wait six months.

In 1986 Ronnie Raygun signed the McClure/Volkmer Firearms Owner's Protection Act, which, in exchange for certain "protections" banned the production and sale of all new automatic weapons under NFA regulation. (That is the only true firearm ban ever passed.)

None of that applies to what I am sure this guy was carrying...a SEMI auto rifle, which is not even a true "Avtomat Kalashnikova" as it is not "avtomat" or automatic.

Now, ATF waffles and flips-flops and throws up clouds of regulations that limits importation of certain classes of firearms as "having no sporting value", getting a fully assembled, semi auto AK-47 clone is difficult at times.

But if you assemble one from parts and use more than 10 US made parts in that assembly, it will pass muster for import.

https://atlantic-firearms-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/media/product_featured_thumbnail/product/riley-ak47-wood-jpg.jpg

Brian4Liberty

07-26-2020, 09:40 PM

He shot 5 times and missed all of them. From the video it sounds like the 2nd volley was the driver returning fire.

Scumbag menaces a motorist with an angry mob while armed in a gun-heavy state and gets shot. Why should anyone care, again?

Some are claiming he shot first. He deserved everything he got. The libertarian movement is a complete and utter failure on every conceivable level, and the fact that people like this are attracted to it is yet another manifestation.

That rumor has been floating around, but is disputed by official sources. The Libertarian never fired. The first shots were fired by the driver, the other shots a little later were another protester with a pistol that fired at the car as it fled. That other protester was arrested.

Brian4Liberty

07-26-2020, 10:09 PM

There were eyewitness accounts on Twitter. Some were a bit different than the "official" news story. They said that people were around the vehicle beating on it, and the guy who got killed walked up to the driver's window and pointed at his own gun. They say the driver is co-operating with police, so no doubt his story is that he was under attack and a guy came up to his window with a gun in a threatening manner. People have shot drivers at these protests, so it will be hard to dismiss that fear as being unreasonable.

As expected. Driver’s story is that he was under attack and the guy walked up to his window pointing the weapon at him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8T8a5iUMIk

Brian4Liberty

07-26-2020, 10:29 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwLI9OuDSgc

TheCount

07-26-2020, 11:03 PM

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/714522720892878918/735694741693530143/110287859_1474715709401126_8397961464911713174_o.j pg?width=616&height=616

https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aAe3gRo_460s.jpg

phill4paul

07-27-2020, 06:25 AM

There were eyewitness accounts on Twitter. Some were a bit different than the "official" news story. They said that people were around the vehicle beating on it, and the guy who got killed walked up to the driver's window and pointed at his own gun. They say the driver is co-operating with police, so no doubt his story is that he was under attack and a guy came up to his window with a gun in a threatening manner. People have shot drivers at these protests, so it will be hard to dismiss that fear as being unreasonable.

Yeah. It's gonna be a shit show of "he said, she said."

This could all be avoided if water cannons were used to clear roadways of protesters, so that...well...fucking vehicles could use them.

phill4paul

07-27-2020, 06:31 AM

https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aAe3gRo_460s.jpg

Cartoon should read "Let me out and we'll fight the right." Not too many on the right have a Panda Furry fetish and a purple backpack. That's all leftist. All the way. Why libertarians choose to court them I'll never know why. Dip-shits being dip-shits I guess.

phill4paul

07-27-2020, 06:37 AM

It's not really an AK-47 just like an AR-15 isn't really an M16/M4.

There's been quite a surge in 2nd amendment / gun rights / gun ownership among the BLM crowd as a result of recent events.

I eagerly await the results of this change... it should be hilarious.

Like the dip-shits of NFAC that shot themselves up? Lol. Yeah, this should become highly entertaining.

Okie RP fan

07-27-2020, 06:39 AM

John-G

07-27-2020, 07:08 AM

He was there everyday, already too far gone down the left libertarian SJW mindset. I think his wife played a big role, she was black and a quadruple amputee, so he was probably highly emotionally attached to a white knight type syndrome. Must save wife via BLM'ing.

Didn't help that the LP nominee put it out there that libertarians can't just be not racist, that we all must be anti-racist (or ANTIRA)

Every wrong done by any libertarian is blamed ultimately on the LP nominee and party. This is never done to the republican or democrat party, makes one wonder why some people are so disgusted by any challenge to the major 2 parties?

69360

07-27-2020, 07:22 AM

Every wrong done by any libertarian is blamed ultimately on the LP nominee and party. This is never done to the republican or democrat party, makes one wonder why some people are so disgusted by any challenge to the major 2 parties?

Nobody has ever blamed Trump for the actions of idiots? Seriously? That happens every fucking day! Rightfully so at times.

John-G

07-27-2020, 07:38 AM

Nobody has ever blamed Trump for the actions of idiots? Seriously? That happens every $#@!ing day! Rightfully so at times.

Well, CNN and MSNBC don't really count. I was talking about the supposedly sane people in this forum. Jo has explained what she means by being anti racism and yet people continue to claim that she supports the marxist BLM movement instead of just supporting the sentiment. I think there is a segment of the forum who are irrational and even unhinged about anything libertarian party, if they are not perfect in every way shape or form then there are no good to humanity and in fact are seen as worse than the totality of the republican and democratic party.

cruzrulez

07-27-2020, 08:45 AM

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/714522720892878918/735694741693530143/110287859_1474715709401126_8397961464911713174_o.j pg?width=616&height=616

Confused libtard commie violates NAP, gets ventilated, and nothing of value was lost. :bigpoo::bigpoo::bigpoo:

devil21

07-27-2020, 09:14 AM

Well, CNN and MSNBC don't really count. I was talking about the supposedly sane people in this forum. Jo has explained what she means by being anti racism and yet people continue to claim that she supports the marxist BLM movement instead of just supporting the sentiment. I think there is a segment of the forum who are irrational and even unhinged about anything libertarian party, if they are not perfect in every way shape or form then there are no good to humanity and in fact are seen as worse than the totality of the republican and democratic party.

There are some here who, of course, are not libertarian in any sense, are 100% authoritarian statists, who want to see anything associated with liberty/freedom/self-determination destroyed permanently, so they post every little thing they can find to smear libertarians collectively. Those that engage in such things are closet communist infiltrators themselves LARPing under the guise of being conservative/libertarian. The tactics are straight out of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, the socialist/communist playbook.

It's not very difficult to pick them out, seeing how they come on LIBERTY FOREST and do nothing but push overt statism and bash anything LIBERTY oriented.

On topic: It's a shame that the young man became collateral damage. I don't have a problem with marching against police brutality or protesting the federal over-reach that's invaded every aspect of our lives. I marched with BLM in the very early days, before it was taken over by paid Soros types, here in Charlotte, after the Keith Scott killing. It was peaceful and was nice, at the time, to see people actually motivated to get off the couch and assemble for a cause that the left and libertarians generally hold as common ground views (and the right did at one time before neocons took over and turned the right into authority worshipping drones after 9/11). The crowds were very diverse with all ages, races and political leanings tired of the militarized police state. Getting caught up in that mess today is a recipe for bad things to happen however, as that young man learned. :sigh: Best to stay away and let the idiots on both sides weed each other out of the gene pool.

cruzrulez

07-27-2020, 09:22 AM

There are some here who, of course, are not libertarian in any sense, are 100% authoritarian statists, who want to see anything associated with liberty/freedom/self-determination destroyed permanently, so they post every little thing they can find to smear libertarians collectively. Those that engage in such things are closet communist infiltrators themselves LARPing under the guise of being conservative/libertarian. The tactics are straight out of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, the socialist/communist playbook.

It's not very difficult to pick them out, seeing how they come on LIBERTY FOREST and do nothing but push overt statism and bash anything LIBERTY oriented.

This place is called Ron Paul forums, not libertarian central. There have been plenty of times the left leaning "libertarians" on this forum make a broad statement, and days later Ron makes a video which would contradict them. That was a testament of how well Ron built his coalition. Unfortunately it's largely fallen apart since 2012.

devil21

07-27-2020, 09:40 AM

This place is called Ron Paul forums, not libertarian central. There have been plenty of times the left leaning "libertarians" on this forum make a broad statement, and days later Ron makes a video which would contradict them. That was a testament of how well Ron built his coalition. Unfortunately it's largely fallen apart since 2012.

That's weird, because the banner says LIBERTY FOREST.

I get that you're relatively new here and don't appear to interact much but the original RP campaigns brought in all kinds of political leanings, but the one thing we all had in common was the sense that government was becoming way too intrusive in every day life. Unlike the lockstep hive minds of the left and right, libertarian school of thought is that people are inherently free to live their lives as they see fit, without a nanny state dictating everything to them. The right loves a nanny state to "keep us safe" while the left loves a nanny state to "bail us out of bad choices". I don't agree with fellow libertarians on everything, even the ones I very much like. That is what individualism and freedom is about. And if we don't agree on everything it doesn't mean that we hate each other for it. That hate mindset is what many operatives spend hours a day trying to reinforce because smaller, divided, groups are easier to control and impedes large, uncontrolled, groups from coming together to oppose what affects us all.

oyarde

07-27-2020, 10:47 AM

cruzrulez

07-27-2020, 11:28 AM

That's weird, because the banner says LIBERTY FOREST.

take a closer look at the URL of this website and the main banner.

nobody's_hero

07-27-2020, 11:32 AM

Hmm. Last week the libertarian solution was to let people work these things out with street justice. No foul by those rules as far as I can tell.

I think the next step is blood atonement, family feud, and/or tribal warfare. None of my business I guess in any case. The gods will surely have favored the victor.

Brian4Liberty

07-27-2020, 11:47 AM

Some of what BLM was doing had some of my support in the beginning.
Once they were taken over by Marxists, nope. Bye bye, you all are no longer credible.

It's sad another person lost their life in this entire mess. I think that's been one of the intended consequences of all this chaos, though.
But, I'm very much at the point in all of this where, while it does hurt to see so much death, destruction, etc. it does have a callousing effect after a while.

...
On topic: It's a shame that the young man became collateral damage. I don't have a problem with marching against police brutality or protesting the federal over-reach that's invaded every aspect of our lives. I marched with BLM in the very early days, before it was taken over by paid Soros types, here in Charlotte, after the Keith Scott killing. It was peaceful and was nice, at the time, to see people actually motivated to get off the couch and assemble for a cause that the left and libertarians generally hold as common ground views (and the right did at one time before neocons took over and turned the right into authority worshipping drones after 9/11). The crowds were very diverse with all ages, races and political leanings tired of the militarized police state. Getting caught up in that mess today is a recipe for bad things to happen however, as that young man learned. :sigh: Best to stay away and let the idiots on both sides weed each other out of the gene pool.

Yep, this was a tragic and unnecessary death. It does go to show that while the Second Amendment applies to all, there is a great responsibility that comes with it, and if a person is going out carrying, there should be some training about consequences.

What was this guy doing? He was open carrying, which is fine. But when he charged up to the driver's window with gun in hand, he was appointing himself as a "cop". What was his intent? To make this guy park his car and allow the mob to destroy it? Pull the driver out and beat him? Or as has happened at other "protests, was he planning on shooting the driver? Did he consider the driver might be armed? He was not retreating. They were engaging in a violent attack on a passing driver. Blocking traffic itself is a crime in my book, and it should be the law, and be prosecuted.

What in the world has made people think that it is perfectly valid to block people, essentially detaining them, yell and scream in their faces, and destroy property with no repercussions?

1287468135646453761
https://twitter.com/USAB4L/status/1287468135646453761

eleganz

07-27-2020, 05:18 PM

Every wrong done by any libertarian is blamed ultimately on the LP nominee and party. This is never done to the republican or democrat party,

I was talking about the supposedly sane people in this forum. Jo has explained what she means by being anti racism and yet people continue to claim that she supports the marxist BLM movement instead of just supporting the sentiment. I think there is a segment of the forum who are irrational and even unhinged about anything libertarian party

Here is Jo's specific words;

Jo Jorgensen on Twitter "It is not enough to be passively not racist, we must be actively anti-racist. #BlackLivesMatter #VoteGold"

I specifically said that it DID NOT help that the LP was putting out this messaging. Do you disagree with me that it DID HELP?? What are you even arguing about? And what happened in the end? A LP supporter got shot in the head being what? actively anti-racist.

You and any other triggered RPF member (@devil21) should read my other post that said he should've just stayed away and been an actual libertarian, being productive and not participating in leftist mob activities.

I guess he heard the great gospel of Jo and decided to be an "anti-racist" instead of a libertarian that just minded his own business, striving in the private sector.

Swordsmyth

07-27-2020, 06:14 PM

Swordsmyth

07-27-2020, 06:16 PM

Yep, this was a tragic and unnecessary death. It does go to show that while the Second Amendment applies to all, there is a great responsibility that comes with it, and if a person is going out carrying, there should be some training about consequences.

What was this guy doing? He was open carrying, which is fine. But when he charged up to the driver's window with gun in hand, he was appointing himself as a "cop". What was his intent? To make this guy park his car and allow the mob to destroy it? Pull the driver out and beat him? Or as has happened at other "protests, was he planning on shooting the driver? Did he consider the driver might be armed? He was not retreating. They were engaging in a violent attack on a passing driver. Blocking traffic itself is a crime in my book, and it should be the law, and be prosecuted.

What in the world has made people think that it is perfectly valid to block people, essentially detaining them, yell and scream in their faces, and destroy property with no repercussions?

1287468135646453761
https://twitter.com/USAB4L/status/1287468135646453761
The guy got what he deserved.
Back when America was great you would see a lot more dead commies over this garbage and the authorities would be thanking the people who did it.

devil21

07-27-2020, 08:03 PM

take a closer look at the URL of this website and the main banner.

I've looked at it nearly every day for the last 13 years. What's your point Mr. 67 posts?

The lesson here is to reach these young people as best as you can and guide them. I've taken a young libertarian fella under my wing lately to teach him "the force" in hopes that he doesn't end up making similarly unwise choices. All libertarians, especially us "elders", need to do the same whenever possible.

I do find it regrettable that some think anyone, especially a young man that was purportedly a libertarian (evidence of which is a bit flimsy but I digress), dying over this manufactured conflict was "getting what he deserved." Who wants to see anyone with a libertarian mindset, while perhaps misguided in his actions, dying in the street, other than a pure statist full of hatred?

Origanalist

07-27-2020, 09:28 PM

The guy got what he deserved.
Back when America was great you would see a lot more dead commies over this garbage and the authorities would be thanking the people who did it.

Lol, another one of your fantasies.
Were you there " back when America was great" and witnessed the authorities thanking people?

CCTelander

07-27-2020, 09:44 PM

Lol, another one of your fantasies.
Were you there " back when America was great" and witnessed the authorities thanking people?

As I recall back in "the good old days" (TM), if people went around murdering others, even commies, the authorities would arrest and prosecute them just like any other murderer. He must be referring to some alternate reality.

Origanalist

07-27-2020, 09:55 PM

As I recall back in "the good old days" (TM), if people went around murdering others, even commies, the authorities would arrest and prosecute them just like any other murderer. He must be referring to some alternate reality.

I think he was referring to when the Minutemen used to clear the Colonies of communist invaders.

Swordsmyth

07-27-2020, 11:01 PM

As I recall back in "the good old days" (TM), if people went around murdering others, even commies, the authorities would arrest and prosecute them just like any other murderer. He must be referring to some alternate reality.

It's not murdering people to shoot or run over criminals who are assaulting, kidnapping or robbing you or destroying property.

CCTelander

07-27-2020, 11:34 PM

It's not murdering people to shoot or run over criminals who are assaulting, kidnapping or robbing you or destroying property.

No, that would be self-defense, which I have no problem with. However, your comment didn't make that clear, especially considering all the times I've seen you opine on this very board that commies should be thrown from helicopters merely for their beliefs.

Swordsmyth

07-28-2020, 01:05 AM

No, that would be self-defense, which I have no problem with. However, your comment didn't make that clear, especially considering all the times I've seen you opine on this very board that commies should be thrown from helicopters merely for their beliefs.
You mean their beliefs in assaulting, kidnapping or robbing you or destroying property?

And the context of my post was quite clear.

John-G

07-28-2020, 04:40 AM

Here is Jo's specific words;

I specifically said that it DID NOT help that the LP was putting out this messaging. Do you disagree with me that it DID HELP?? What are you even arguing about? And what happened in the end? A LP supporter got shot in the head being what? actively anti-racist.

You and any other triggered RPF member (@devil21) should read my other post that said he should've just stayed away and been an actual libertarian, being productive and not participating in leftist mob activities.

There was an interview she did on CSPAN where she actually explains what she was going to do about race and all she talked about was the same sort of policies Ron Paul used to talk about like ending the war on drugs and asset forfeiture laws etc, no talks about reparations, affirmative actions or any of the polices BLM tends to support. All signs show that she was not supporting the movement but the sentiment and also her talk of anti racism to anyone who is not unhinged since to signify her desire to go beyond just saying she is against racism and that she will change laws that would make life better for black people and just people in general.

I will ask you a question, can you show me anything policy wise that worries you about her? Heck Trump was openly a zionist, Israeli firster who was boosted by a zionist drain on the US and yet none of you guys going bunkers about this tweet(which is not a policy) said anything about it.

I just worry about the sort of people who are unhinged about libertarianism and their candidate, do I think she is perfect? definitely not. Heck not even the great Ron Paul was perfect but she is a massive upgrade than the dem and rep option we have and only a hardcore statist infiltrator cannot see it

Anti Federalist

07-28-2020, 06:31 AM

There was an interview she did on CSPAN where she actually explains what she was going to do about race and all she talked about was the same sort of policies Ron Paul used to talk about like ending the war on drugs and asset forfeiture laws etc, no talks about reparations, affirmative actions or any of the polices BLM tends to support. All signs show that she was not supporting the movement but the sentiment and also her talk of anti racism to anyone who is not unhinged since to signify her desire to go beyond just saying she is against racism and that she will change laws that would make life better for black people and just people in general.

Then she fundamentally misunderstands what "anti racism" is. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?548181-What-is-Anti-Racism)

John-G

07-28-2020, 07:13 AM

Then she fundamentally misunderstands what "anti racism" is. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?548181-What-is-Anti-Racism)

Maybe so and I bet the anti libertarians on this side will spare some of the dozens of benefits of the doubts they've showered on Trump on Dr. Jo. Sad where this forums has gone to where it is now fashionable to be seen as anti, deeply deranged, irrational hatred of the libertarian party. I have been watching her interviews and reading articles about here and I have yet to see her propose any policy that was "anti-racism" according to the definition you posted.

anti-racism” means supporting and instituting policies and ideas that level racial disparities of socio-economic outcome, while “racism” consists of any policy or idea that results in racial inequity.

And please do post examples of her proposing anit-racism policies, there are a lot of people on this forum looking for a good reason to hate on the woman and the party.

Swordsmyth

07-28-2020, 03:00 PM

Then she fundamentally misunderstands what "anti racism" is. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?548181-What-is-Anti-Racism)

Or pretends to.

Anti Federalist

07-28-2020, 03:33 PM

Maybe so and I bet the anti libertarians on this side will spare some of the dozens of benefits of the doubts they've showered on Trump on Dr. Jo. Sad where this forums has gone to where it is now fashionable to be seen as anti, deeply deranged, irrational hatred of the libertarian party. I have been watching her interviews and reading articles about here and I have yet to see her propose any policy that was "anti-racism" according to the definition you posted.

I am not comparing Trump to Jorgensen. What she has proposed or is on the LP party platform is mostly agreeable to me and I support it.

But she said what she said, and to embrace Marxist "anti racism" is to deny the entire rest of the platform, the two are utterly incompatible.

My "hatred' stem from watching so many "libertarians" abandon the philosophy to instead embrace Bernie Bro Bolshevism.

And please do post examples of her proposing anit-racism policies, there are a lot of people on this forum looking for a good reason to hate on the woman and the party.

I'd be inclined to ask her about it at a campaign event.

cruzrulez

07-28-2020, 05:37 PM

I've looked at it nearly every day for the last 13 years. What's your point Mr. 67 posts?

haha, you commies are lucky swordsmith, danno, and anti fed (not to forget anyone else sry) entertain you all on this failing website. If I were Ron, I'd politely ask the site owners to run this thing into the ground for gross misrepresentations of his legacy. :handpeace: I wouldn't be surprised if you're all paid from the same trough as tones was.

devil21

07-28-2020, 06:02 PM

haha, you commies are lucky swordsmith, danno, and anti fed (not to forget anyone else sry) entertain you all on this failing website. If I were Ron, I'd politely ask the site owners to run this thing into the ground for gross misrepresentations of his legacy. :handpeace: I wouldn't be surprised if you're all paid from the same trough as tones was.

Aww u mad bro?

I guess cruzrulez forgot that Ron ran as a Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1988.

susano

07-29-2020, 08:38 PM

Yeah. It's gonna be a $#@! show of "he said, she said."

This could all be avoided if water cannons were used to clear roadways of protesters, so that...well...$#@!ing vehicles could use them.

From what I've heard, water cannons can actually put someone's eye out. IMO, tear gas seems like the best dispersant, though rioters/protestors have used leaf blowers to blow it back (clever!). Though I've not smelled it but have some seen funny prank videos using it, Liquid Ass (whatever is in that) sounds like a great non lethal substance to clear out out a crowd. I recall the Israelis using it on Palestinians (too bad they usually use bullets) and they called it "skunk". Everyone thought it was sewage so it has be really nasty.

susano

07-29-2020, 09:00 PM

I've looked at it nearly every day for the last 13 years. What's your point Mr. 67 posts?

The lesson here is to reach these young people as best as you can and guide them. I've taken a young libertarian fella under my wing lately to teach him "the force" in hopes that he doesn't end up making similarly unwise choices. All libertarians, especially us "elders", need to do the same whenever possible.

I do find it regrettable that some think anyone, especially a young man that was purportedly a libertarian (evidence of which is a bit flimsy but I digress), dying over this manufactured conflict was "getting what he deserved." Who wants to see anyone with a libertarian mindset, while perhaps misguided in his actions, dying in the street, other than a pure statist full of hatred?

I think it's a shame that that young man wasted his life by making that stupid decision. From what I read, he and his girlfriend had been together since they were 17 and he stayed by her side through whatever hell caused the loss of her limbs and then was her devoted caretaker as well as partner. What a tragic loss for her and his mother. He sounds like he was a good guy but sure got stupid that night.

Did he deserve what he got? Well, he pointed his rifle at a driver surrounded by an aggressive crowd, banging on his car. The driver had a reasonable expectation to be able to drive, unmolested, down the street and those fuckheads should have been nowhere his car. I'm getting really sick of these a-holes mobbing streets and even freeways and acting like they're the victims. The only words anyone needs to hear about that issue are REGINALD DENNY. So, in light of that, the young guy did get what was coming to him, unfortunately. The driver was obviously afraid.

Anti Federalist

07-29-2020, 09:15 PM

susano

07-29-2020, 09:56 PM

Skip to 1:50 for the Liquid Ass.

Video

Ahahaha! At one point, the female voice says "Operation butt trumpet initiated", lol.

Here's my favorite:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhlX8pIVIOw&pbjreload=101

If I were a police chief, I'd be ordering this stuff by the barrel.
If I were Antifa, I'd be throwing it in bottles.

eleganz

07-29-2020, 10:04 PM

John-G

07-29-2020, 11:23 PM

There is a reason 90% of this thread's participants sees the case for what it is and knows if you bring a firearm like that and posture aggressively with an even more aggressive crowd preventing a car from driving on the road, IN THE BIGGEST GUN-FRIENDLY STATE, you get whats coming.

It certainly did NOT help that the libertarian party's nominee specifically asked that its NOT ok to be just not racist, you must be ACTIVELY anti-racist.

I can see that your irrational hatred of the libertarian party would not allow you to let this issue die. Now look, just because someone is a libertarian doesn't mean he is a member of the libertarian party, secondly even if he was a member of the libertarian party doesn't mean that he agrees with everything you think Jo said about race. Third, even if she said what you think she said and he happened to be following directions from her, its still solely his fault for what happened that day, he is an adult and not a child.

Keep pushing this moronic notion that whatever you think Jo said had an effect on this man's behaviour that night. This is the kind of deranged, psychotic logic that causes liberals to blame Trump every time any of his supporters drinks bleach.

devil21

07-30-2020, 09:45 AM

From what I've heard, water cannons can actually put someone's eye out. IMO, tear gas seems like the best dispersant, though rioters/protestors have used leaf blowers to blow it back (clever!). Though I've not smelled it but have some seen funny prank videos using it, Liquid Ass (whatever is in that) sounds like a great non lethal substance to clear out out a crowd. I recall the Israelis using it on Palestinians (too bad they usually use bullets) and they called it "skunk". Everyone thought it was sewage so it has be really nasty.

Speaking of tear gas, another reason for libertarians to stay away from these manufactured conflicts has arisen. Many first-hand reports are emerging of females exposed to the tear gas at recent marches/protests/riots are experiencing lasting physical symptoms, namely major disruptions to their menstrual cycles. It wouldn't surprise me if additional depopulation-related chemical agents are being added to the tear gas formulations.

nobody's_hero

07-30-2020, 12:39 PM

Speaking of tear gas, another reason for libertarians to stay away from these manufactured conflicts has arisen. Many first-hand reports are emerging of females exposed to the tear gas at recent marches/protests/riots are experiencing lasting physical symptoms, namely major disruptions to their menstrual cycles. It wouldn't surprise me if additional depopulation-related chemical agents are being added to the tear gas formulations.

I've heard it's affecting even the Antifa males' menstrual cycles.

Swordsmyth

07-30-2020, 03:07 PM

I've heard it's affecting even the Antifa males' menstrual cycles.

:tears:

Valli6

07-31-2020, 02:09 PM

(original story http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?548161-Austin-Libertarian-BLM-Protester-Shot-Dead )

Army sergeant says he's the one who shot a protester to death in Austin
By Brian Dakss
JULY 31, 2020 / 7:55 AM / CBS NEWS

...Attorney Clint Broden, of Dallas-based Broden, Mickelsen, LLP, said late Thursday night that Sergeant Daniel Perry, an eight-year veteran, was in Austin driving for a ride-share company when he turned onto Congress Avenue and "encountered a throng of people in the street." Perry didn't know about the protest, Broden said.

After Perry made the turn, "several people started beating on his vehicle," Broden asserts.

At that point, according to Broden, someone carrying an assault rifle "quickly approached the car and then motioned with the assault rifle for Mr. Perry to lower his window. Sgt. Perry initially believed the person was associated with law enforcement and complied with the command. After rolling down the window, it became apparent to Sgt. Perry that the individual with the assault rifle was not with law enforcement.

"It has now been confirmed by several witnesses that this individual with the assault rifle then began to raise the assault rifle toward Sgt. Perry. It was only then that Sgt. Perry, who carried a handgun in his car for his own protection while driving strangers in the ride share program, fired on the person to protect his own life.

"Immediately after Sgt. Perry fired on the individual who raised the assault rifle toward him, a member of the crowd began firing on Sgt. Perry's vehicle. Sgt. Perry drove to safety and immediately called the police. He waited for the police to arrive and fully cooperated with the police following the shooting and he continues to do so."

" … Sgt. Perry and his family deeply sympathize with the loss and grief being experienced by Mr. Foster's family. Sgt. Perry is devastated by what happened."

But James Sasinowski, who was among the demonstrators, told Chris Cuomo on CNN Monday night that, "The thing I want to make extremely clear … (is that) the driver intentionally and aggressively accelerated their vehicle into a crowd of people. That is extremely clear. … He incited the violence. Period."...

Independent journalist Hiram Gilberto Garcia said he interviewed Foster in a video on Periscope prior to the shooting. During the interview, Foster said he was carrying an AK-47.

"They don't let us march in the streets anymore, so I've got to practice some of my rights," he said. He said he didn't think he would use it, because "if I use it against the cops, I'm dead." He said he didn't think the people who "hate us" would shoot at them.

His mother told The Dallas Morning News her son had been bringing a gun to the protests, which he'd been attending with his fiancee, who is a quadruple amputee. In the Periscope video, the fiancee said they'd been protesting "for a month and a half."

CBS Austin affiliate KEYE-TV says Austin police are now asking anyone with relevant information on the shooting, including original video footage or images, to come forward.

First published on July 31, 2020 / 7:55 AM
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/austin-protest-fatal-shooting-army-sergeant-says-he-did-it

"Witness" James Sasinowski has a youtube channel :rolleyes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVW2GVK-zEY
Video of Sasinowski's account of what happened: https://www.fox26houston.com/video/834361
Doesn't think it matters whether or not Foster pointed gun at him.

phill4paul

07-31-2020, 02:25 PM

Get the hell off the road and allow vehicles to use them for their intended purposes, dumb-asses.

Occam's Banana

07-31-2020, 02:40 PM

Get the hell off the road and allow vehicles to use them for their intended purposes, dumb-asses.

File under "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" ...

The Ethics of Protesting on Roads Primer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTB_jxBsA6A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTB_jxBsA6A

Danke

08-01-2020, 10:06 PM

7665

Danke

08-01-2020, 10:09 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N9OMnlQXK4&feature=emb_title

CCTelander

08-01-2020, 10:12 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N9OMnlQXK4&feature=emb_title

Priceless! + rep

CCTelander

08-02-2020, 01:00 AM

A very sensible analysis of the whole thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qSdbVYcGk8

Krugminator2

08-02-2020, 12:36 PM

I just Googled to find out who the shooter was.

He posted on Twitter about the need to be armed to protect against protesters. So he might have looked for a confrontation and people are hysterical about that. No one in any major media points out that the guy who was shot said in an interview hours before the shooting that he dared people people to stand up to him while he carrying.

Seems like two idiots. But only one of those idiots initiated aggression by blocking the guys car while carrying a rifle.

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/07/31/daniel-perry-austin-protest-garrett-foster/

Philhelm

08-02-2020, 05:02 PM

Speaking of tear gas, another reason for libertarians to stay away from these manufactured conflicts has arisen. Many first-hand reports are emerging of females exposed to the tear gas at recent marches/protests/riots are experiencing lasting physical symptoms, namely major disruptions to their menstrual cycles. It wouldn't surprise me if additional depopulation-related chemical agents are being added to the tear gas formulations.

Most of the women attending the protests abort their would-be children anyway, so that would be a Professor Chaos tier scheme.

devil21

08-03-2020, 02:26 PM

Most of the women attending the protests abort their would-be children anyway, so that would be a Professor Chaos tier scheme.

I've heard it's affecting even the Antifa males' menstrual cycles.

Probably so but I don't want to see any more libertarians, misguided or otherwise, suffering harm from participating in this stuff. Since the various eviction and rent/mortgage moratoriums have expired, it's likely to get even more screwed up out there soon.

Information like the tear gas>menstrual cycle shows why it's best for longer term survival to stick with a more military mindset of gathering info from all avenues, even some you may not support, instead of locking oneself inside a one-sided narrative bubble where information is usually custom curated for consumption. Information curators rarely have your best interests in mind, regardless of which faction they're curating for.

Anti Globalist

08-03-2020, 06:24 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N9OMnlQXK4&feature=emb_title
LOL great video.

Brian4Liberty

08-03-2020, 08:43 PM

Occam's Banana

04-07-2023, 05:25 PM

Jury finds Daniel Perry guilty of murder
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/local/2023/04/07/daniel-perry-verdict-guilty-murder-garrett-foster-austin-protest/70090982007/
Claire Osborn (07 April 2023)

A Travis County jury on Friday found Uber driver Daniel Perry guilty of murder in the shooting death of Austin protester Garrett Foster (https://www.statesman.com/story/news/local/2023/03/27/daniel-perry-trial-fatal-shooting-death-austin-protester-garrett-foster/70046940007/) in 2020. The jury deliberated 17 hours over two days to reach its decision after an eight-day trial. The jury also found Perry not guilty of an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in connection to driving in front of another protester.

Perry buried his head into the chest of one of his lawyers and sobbed loudly after the verdict was read. Foster's wife, Whitney Mitchell, hugged friends and cried after hearing the verdict.

“We are happy with the verdict and also very sorry for (Perry's) family as well,” Stephen Foster, the victim's father, said outside the courtroom.

Mitchell declined to comment.

Perry's relatives also did not talk to reporters as they rushed out of the courtroom.

Garrett Foster's friends, including several who testified during the trial, also declined to comment outside the courtroom after the verdict.

“I’m grateful to our dedicated career prosecutors and victims’ counselors who tried this case. They worked hard to make a complete and accurate presentation of the facts to the jury,” Travis County District Attorney José Garza said in a statement. “Our hearts continue to break for the Foster family. We hope this verdict brings closure and peace to the victim’s family.”

Judge Clifford Brown said he has time for sentencing hearing on Tuesday, but he will confirm that on Monday with lawyers for both sides.

During closing arguments on Thursday morning, defense attorneys said Perry had no choice but to shoot Garrett Foster five times as he approached Perry’s car with an AK-47 rifle. Prosecutors said Perry had plenty of choices, including driving away before he fired his revolver.

Perry, who is an Army sergeant, was traveling on Fourth Street on the night of July 25, 2020, and turned right onto Congress Avenue, where a Black Lives Matter crowd was marching. Perry stopped, and several protesters approached his car, including Foster, police have said. Protesters have said they feared they were being attacked by someone in a car. Defense lawyers have said Foster, 28, raised his AK-47 at Perry, and that Perry, 37, fired in self-defense.

Whether Perry, fueled by anti-protester beliefs, provoked the shooting by driving into a crowd of marchers or whether Foster pointed his rifle at Perry and Perry fired in self-defense has been at the heart of the much-anticipated trial that began March 28 in Travis County's 147th District Court.

A few witnesses said during the trial that Foster never raised his rifle at Perry. Perry, who did not testify, told police that Foster did. There was no video or photos presented at the trial that showed the position of Foster's rifle when he was shot.

Prosecutor Guillermo Gonzalez said Perry's posts on social media show he clearly had very strong feelings against protesters, including saying that people could get away with shooting them in Texas. He was angry when he turned into the crowd because a woman he wanted to meet up with had texting him asking for money, said Gonzalez.

"This is an age-old story about a man who couldn't keep his anger under control," said Gonzalez. "It's not about police, and it's not about protest marchers." Gonzalez said Perry committed aggravated assault with a deadly weapon by driving into the crowd even though he could clearly see the protesters marching from three different angles before he turned right on Congress Avenue, Gonzalez said.

"Garrett Foster had every right to go up to him and see what the heck was going on and he had every right to do it with a deadly weapon," Gonzalez said.

Defense attorney Doug O'Connell said prosecutors wanted the jury "to believe (Perry) had this evil plan when he turned right."

"The protesters didn't know anything about Perry when they attacked the car and boxed it in," he said, "and Daniel had no choice, and that could have happened to anyone."

O'Connell argued that Foster was dressed for battle at the protest, including wearing a neoprene vest under his T-shirt and carrying an AK-47, a club and a knife. Perry was wearing a T-shirt, shorts and flip-flops, the attorney said.

"Garrett Foster is dressed for war," O'Connell said. "Daniel Perry is dressed for the beach."

Anti Federalist

04-07-2023, 05:51 PM

Prosecutors said Perry had plenty of choices, including driving away before he fired his revolver.

Upon which he would have been arrested for attempted murder of the Marxist maggots, they would have claimed.

ClaytonB

04-07-2023, 06:20 PM

Last thing I read, he was not being charged... what "changed"? :rolleyes:

There is more to this case than meets the eye. Watch the dashcam footage carefully (left-side):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NotxWhD_s3U

Perry honks at 0:19. Notice the sprinter (black top, khaki bottoms + knee pads) running flat-out towards Perry's car at 0:21. He is already at full speed by the time he comes into view of the dashcam. Within two seconds of hearing a honk, this man is vectoring at 1-million MPH to Perry's car. Something doesn't add up. Humans do not move/react that fast, especially in such a crowded/busy environment. But you know what does travel faster than human reaction-time? Radios. But even with assistance of radio-comms, the man in the black top and khakis must have been already alerted/vectored towards the intersection as Perry was proceeding around the corner, even before he honked. Based on the timing, that's the only explanation.

Also, notice how the main actors in this scene do not react to the gunfire. The right-side cameraman is particularly telling, he continues to proceed towards Perry's car even after hearing gunfire. The runners who vectored to Perry's car did not even flinch, let alone duck or take cover. This is not the behavior of "volunteer crowd security", this is the behavior of professional operators.

Notice how THE NARRATIVE only works in one direction. If Perry had been at a pro-Trump rally with an AR-15 and signaled a driver who happened to be armed to roll down his window after brandishing the rifle, and had been shot dead, that would not be prosecuted as murder, if at all.

Also note that some Antifa member must have returned fire at Perry, you can hear 3 or 4 reports from their weapon @0:32 (is this person going to be identified and prosecuted? Of course not, because this is Clown World...)

The Left is so eager to score any win, no matter how petty, that they're going to bury themselves alive. I don't think they can even comprehend the Leviathan that they are rousing...

Occam's Banana

04-07-2023, 06:43 PM

Last thing I read, he was not being charged... what "changed"?

https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1644478182697861125
https://i.imgur.com/80QZLtV.png

Anti Federalist

04-08-2023, 12:04 AM

https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1644478182697861125
https://i.imgur.com/80QZLtV.png

A Soros paid for Marxist DA cobbled together a leftist jury, in leftist Austin and burned this man down.

So, where the fuck is the state GOP apparatus along with Abbot, with a full and unconditional pardon?

Occam's Banana

04-08-2023, 01:45 PM

So, where the fuck is the state GOP apparatus along with Abbot, with a full and unconditional pardon?

https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1644778789493243907
https://i.imgur.com/DouInAQ.png

Anti Federalist

04-08-2023, 01:49 PM

https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1644778789493243907
https://i.imgur.com/DouInAQ.png

OK, fair enough...law and order that's my middle name. :rolleyes:

I was just coming in here lambaste Abbot and the TX GOP again.

Abbot's finding himself on the front lines of this war, whether he wants to be or not.

Needs to happen to whole lot of other establishment GOP creeps like Mittens or Turtle or the Murk

Texas AG Blasts ‘Soros-Backed’ Travis County DA After Soldier’s Shooting Conviction

https://www.breitbart.com/border/2023/04/08/texas-ag-blasts-soros-backed-travis-county-da-after-soldiers-shooting-conviction/

BOB PRICE 8 Apr 2023

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton blasted Travis County District Attorney José Garza who he described as a “Soros-backed” prosecutor. The attack on the district attorney followed the conviction by a local jury of Army Sergeant Daniel Perry in connection to the shooting death of a Black Lives Matter armed protester in July 2020. Sgt. Perry claimed self-defense in the case.

“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.”

“This week has shown us how rogue prosecutors have weaponized the judicial system,” AG Paxton added. “They must be stopped!”

His comments follow Sgt. Perry’s conviction on Friday by a jury in Travis County on Friday for the shooting death of Garret Foster. Perry claimed Foster pointed an AK-47 at him after protesters stopped his car as he attempted to move through the protest group.

Breitbart News’ Simon Kent reported the shooting which took place on July 25, 2020, during a Black Lives Matter protest in Austin. A Facebook video showed captured the incident but did not make the circumstances leading up to the shooting clear.

tod evans

04-08-2023, 01:59 PM

“This week has shown us how rogue prosecutors have weaponized the judicial system,” AG Paxton added. “They must be stopped!”

Oh there're "rogue prosecutors" on both sides of the isle bucko!

The idiots seeking huge sentences for drugs are just a guilty as the asshole in this case so don't get to feeling all high-n-mighty.

Brian4Liberty

04-08-2023, 02:13 PM

1644761457530138626
https://twitter.com/chiproytx/status/1644761457530138626

Brian4Liberty

04-08-2023, 02:17 PM

Interesting thread:

1644749796530442241
https://twitter.com/WILLisms/status/1644749796530442241

Occam's Banana

04-08-2023, 02:50 PM

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

OK, fair enough...law and order that's my middle name. :rolleyes:

I was just coming in here lambaste Abbot and the TX GOP again.

I feel you, man. I was pleasantly surprised by this.

(Maybe that whole Tennessee situation is galvanizing some reaction and fortifying some spines.)

Abbot's finding himself on the front lines of this war, whether he wants to be or not.

Needs to happen to whole lot of other establishment GOP creeps like Mittens or Turtle or the Murk

As things come more and more to a head, we'll see more and more separation of the wheat from the chaff. [1]

We'll get mostly chaff, of course - so we can only hope there will be enough wheat [2] left to see things through. [3]

"It is possible we will lose. It is impossible that we must lose. That is the white pill." -- Michael Malice

[1] I was going to say "of the men from the boys", but then I realized I am not a biologist. :eek:

[2] And I just realized I am not a botanist, either - but to hell with it. ;)

[3] I am no apologist for the GOP - almost all of them are useless frauds - but of those who have sufficient position, power, and will to resist the rising tide of woke progressivism, all seem to be Republicans (even though too many of them are mixed bags). That's just an observation, though - not an endorsement of the party. At this point, I don't really give a damn what letter-in-parentheses follows their names - R, D, L, or I - as long as they offer more than just token resistance.

Occam's Banana

04-08-2023, 02:52 PM

Oh there're "rogue prosecutors" on both sides of the isle bucko!

The idiots seeking huge sentences for drugs are just a guilty as the asshole in this case so don't get to feeling all high-n-mighty.

You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice.

Brian4Liberty

04-08-2023, 04:25 PM

A Soros paid for Marxist DA cobbled together a leftist jury, in leftist Austin and burned this man down.
...

All roads lead to Soros...

ClaytonB

04-08-2023, 04:38 PM

[3] I am no apologist for the GOP - almost all of them are useless frauds - but of those who have sufficient position, power, and will to resist the rising tide of woke progressivism, all seem to be Republicans (even though too many of them are mixed bags). That's just an observation, though - not an endorsement of the party. At this point, I don't really give a damn what letter-in-parentheses follows their names - R, D, L, or I - as long as they offer more than just token resistance.

We have seen more than enough of what Clown World is hiding behind its mask to say without uncertainty, halting or stuttering that there exists an evil conspiracy within the US which has all but completely taken over all positions of power within this country. It has infiltrated all parties, agencies, bureaucracies at the national level, and many state and local levels, as well, and has likely infiltrated most private organizations with any non-negligible political influence. This means that there are just two types of politicians: Those who are a part of the evil conspiracy, and those who are not. There are any number of ways that those who are not part of the evil conspiracy can make that fact clear, such as opposing the Federal Reserve, proclaiming that Jesus is their Lord, openly contradicting the tsunami of lies that is Wokism, and so on. While no one can be held guilty before the law merely for failing to openly differentiate themselves from the evil conspiracy, I do hold every politician who has not openly opposed it as a possible conspirator, meaning, they are not to be trusted with so much as the office of dog-catcher. Guilty-until-proven-innocent in the court of public opinion, for those who hold power (especially public office), is consistent with the founding values of our country. The Founders were deeply suspicious of power and role-modeled that suspicion to us in many exemplary ways. We ought to learn from them...

https://i.postimg.cc/FKbKqBZx/image.png

Anti Federalist

04-08-2023, 06:24 PM

https://i.postimg.cc/FKbKqBZx/image.png

As much as we would all like it to be so, there is no evidence that the quote above is a genuine Washington quote.

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/05/26/fire-servant/

Weston White

04-08-2023, 06:50 PM

Not giving a penny to that rag to get past their firewall. Lol.

heh...paywall...

Tip: sometimes, you can post the link or title into Google and then click on the three horizontal dots, then expand the more options, and click on the cache button to view it for free.

Weston White

04-08-2023, 06:52 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/26/us/austin-shooting-texas-protests.html

Video of this or it didn't go down like this...Protests like this have people shooting video from every angle.

Weston White

04-08-2023, 06:57 PM

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fipatriot.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F02%2FTrump-Sharpton-Jackson-Don-King-James-Brown-1200x630.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

OMG, that Trump is one racist SOB!

ClaytonB

04-08-2023, 07:35 PM

As much as we would all like it to be so, there is no evidence that the quote above is a genuine Washington quote.

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/05/26/fire-servant/

Meh, good enough for government work. There are countless misattributed quotes, and the whole rat's nest will never be untangled this side of heaven. Washington was no friend of centralized power and was clearly concordant with the American principle that the citizenry ought to be fundamentally suspicious towards government power, even when the righteous rule and even in times of peace and plenty. The failure of the last few generations of Americans to preserve this undying suspicious of power is what has given us the modern hellscape of Wokism. I'm not saying it's all their fault, only that we are certainly paying some cost for their failure to remain ever-vigilant against secret tyranny and remain maniacally jealous of our liberty...

“In politics as in philosophy, my tenets are few and simple. The leading one of which, and indeed that which embraces most others, is to be honest and just ourselves and to exact it from others, meddling as little as possible in their affairs where our own are not involved. If this maxim was generally adopted, wars would cease and our swords would soon be converted into reap hooks and our harvests be more peaceful, abundant, and happy.”

― George Washington

Anti Federalist

04-09-2023, 02:40 AM

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

1644703256570916865

Occam's Banana

04-10-2023, 11:40 AM

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDhRtS-KLmY

69360

04-10-2023, 12:22 PM

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

Origanalist

04-10-2023, 01:14 PM

You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice.

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

Origanalist

04-10-2023, 01:23 PM

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDhRtS-KLmY

I'm sure they will be Mostly Peaceful™.

Anti Federalist

04-13-2023, 05:08 AM

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

04-13-2023, 06:02 AM

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

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

04-13-2023, 07:47 AM

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

04-13-2023, 08:15 AM

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

04-13-2023, 09:29 AM

jmdrake

04-13-2023, 09:56 AM

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. (https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm)

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/news/local/2023/04/10/get-up-to-date-on-the-daniel-perry-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

04-13-2023, 09:58 AM

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

04-13-2023, 10:11 AM

...
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

04-13-2023, 10:25 AM

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

04-13-2023, 10:42 AM

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

04-13-2023, 10:51 AM

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

04-13-2023, 10:53 AM

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

04-13-2023, 11:02 AM

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

04-13-2023, 11:10 AM

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. (https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm)

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

04-13-2023, 11:20 AM

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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NotxWhD_s3U

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

04-13-2023, 11:26 AM

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...

ClaytonB

04-13-2023, 11:27 AM

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?

Don't you know? Foster was forced to "defend" himself by "approaching" Perry's vehicle!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

jmdrake

04-13-2023, 11:48 AM

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

It's deceitful of you to try to put words in my mouth by quoting me as saying "Foster was defending himself when he approached Perry's car." I didn't say that and I didn't quote that.

Now what was Foster doing walking around a protest with an AK47? I dunno. He shouldn't have done that. And Kyle Rittenhouse shouldn't have been walking around a protest with an AR15 either.

jmdrake

04-13-2023, 11:52 AM

I don't know if he's stated his reasons for that,

Stop right there. If you don't have the answer to that basic question then you should take your arse off your high horse.

but are you suggesting that Perry was just on a rampage to run people over, or something?

I haven't suggested anything. I asked a question.

ClaytonB

04-13-2023, 12:02 PM

It's deceitful of you to try to put words in my mouth by quoting me as saying "Foster was defending himself when he approached Perry's car." I didn't say that and I didn't quote that.

You don't want to play me for a punk, get that through your skull right now, for your own benefit. HERE (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?548161-Austin-Libertarian-BLM-Protester-Shot-Dead&p=7166939&viewfull=1#post7166939) is where you quoted it:

https://i.imgur.com/MldfU9K.png

You're the wrong dog barking up the wrong tree on the wrong street in the wrong zip-code. Make better life-choices... seriously.

jmdrake

04-13-2023, 12:03 PM

Don't you know? Foster was forced to "defend" himself by "approaching" Perry's vehicle!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Kyle Rittenhouse was "forced" to defend himself when Rosenberg set a dumpster on fire. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

ClaytonB

04-13-2023, 12:03 PM

Stop right there. If you don't have the answer to that basic question then you should take your arse off your high horse.

I think I'm just fine sitting right here on this high-horse stomping you into a mudhole and walking it dry. You're just another Mouthpiece blindly parroting Establishment propganda. Buzz off.

ClaytonB

04-13-2023, 12:06 PM

Kyle Rittenhouse was "forced" to defend himself when Rosenberg set a dumpster on fire. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

:shrugging:

Rittenhouse isn't my issue and not the topic of the thread. He has as much to do with Perry defending himself from a crowd of Antifa thugs as does the Man in the Moon. You're out of touch with reality.

jmdrake

04-13-2023, 12:09 PM

You don't want to play me for a punk, get that through skull right now, for your own benefit. HERE (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?548161-Austin-Libertarian-BLM-Protester-Shot-Dead&p=7166939&viewfull=1#post7166939) is where you quoted it:

https://i.imgur.com/MldfU9K.png

You're the wrong dog barking up the wrong tree on the wrong street in the wrong zip-code. Make better life-choices... seriously.

Umm...if you want to call yourself a punk go right ahead. :rolleyes: So you went back up earlier in the thread to find every place where I quoted any story as opposed to the direct quote? Yeah...that's a punk move. But okay. An honest person (not you) knows that I haven't made an issue of whether or not the guy with the AK47 was defending himself. I just posted the news stories as I found them with the context. You took that quote out of context. Shame on you.

On to your point about the "rolling red light." You can't do that when you're turning into a group of pedestrians! Perry was Uber driving. I did Uber driving as well for a while. Downtown Nashville is ALWAYS as crowded on a Saturday night as that video. And even when it's legal to turn right on red, you are supposed to stop and wait for the pedestrians to clear out first. Perry didn't do that. He created a dangerous situation for no explicable reason.

jmdrake

04-13-2023, 12:09 PM

I think I'm just fine sitting right here on this high-horse stomping you into a mudhole and walking it dry. You're just another Mouthpiece blindly parroting Establishment propganda. Buzz off.

You don't own the forum.

jmdrake

04-13-2023, 12:10 PM

:shrugging:

Rittenhouse isn't my issue and not the topic of the thread. He has as much to do with Perry defending himself from a crowd of Antifa thugs as does the Man in the Moon. You're out of touch with reality.

I brought up Rittenhouse as a comparison. If you want to discuss what I've said, instead taking your out of context quoting of references that I used, then discuss what I said. Otherwise buzz off.

ClaytonB

04-13-2023, 12:22 PM

Bark back with your gaslighting tactics all you want, it will do you no good. You've proven your "mettle" in this thread for all to see.

jmdrake

04-13-2023, 12:24 PM

Don't you know? Foster was forced to "defend" himself by "approaching" Perry's vehicle!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

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/default/files/files/Transportation/Ped_Safety_and_the_Law_Austin.pdf

There were pedestrians in and out of the crosswalk. Perry created a dangerous situation. As to Brian4Liberty'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.

jmdrake

04-13-2023, 12:25 PM

Bark back with your gaslighting tactics all you want, it will do you no good. You've proven your "mettle" in this thread for all to see.

I don't think you know what the word "gaslighting" even means. And what I've proven is that I'm not a brain dead drone that goes along with mob / group think even if I generally agree with said group on other things. Integrity. You should try it sometime.

Anti Federalist

04-13-2023, 02:09 PM

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.

Item B (3) specifically exempts traffic violations as justification for use of force (in this case against Perry).

Has the state proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that Perry ran that red light with malicious intent?

Or was it simply a traffic violation occurring while trying to do his job as an Uber driver, being suddenly surrounded by an armed and threatening mob?

A mob that did in fact open fire on him as he drove off.

Anti Federalist

04-13-2023, 02:11 PM

But the law isn't supposed to work that way.

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjOPLTTjnwc

Anti Federalist

04-13-2023, 02:20 PM

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.

https://i.imgflip.com/7i2d0d.jpg

Anti Federalist

04-13-2023, 02:41 PM

Why did he run the red light?

Who knows?

Can it be proved he had malicious intent?

ClaytonB

04-13-2023, 02:54 PM

Who knows?

Can it be proved he had malicious intent?

It can be proved that he did not have malicious intent because, as soon as he rounds the corner (navigating between the protestors in the intersection), he came to a stop because the crowd was too dense, unlike the Kenosha psychopath. After someone thumped his vehicle and Foster brandished or pointed his firearm at Perry, Perry fired in self-defense as I believe I would likely have done in his situation.

Once again, the litmus test to determine whether Perry's actions were reasonable or malicious couldn't be simpler: Would a police officer in Perry's exact situation be charged for doing what Perry did? Of course not. This is a purely political prosecution. It is a witch-hunt and it is yet another piss-poor example of "governing from the bench"...

Anti Federalist

04-13-2023, 03:02 PM

It can be proved that he did not have malicious intent because, as soon as he rounds the corner (navigating between the protestors in the intersection), he came to a stop because the crowd was too dense, unlike the Kenosha psychopath. After someone thumped his vehicle and Foster brandished or pointed his firearm at Perry, Perry fired in self-defense as I believe I would likely have done in his situation.

Once again, the litmus test to determine whether Perry's actions were reasonable or malicious couldn't be simpler: Would a police officer in Perry's exact situation be charged for doing what Perry did? Of course not. This is a purely political prosecution. It is a witch-hunt and it is yet another piss-poor example of "governing from the bench"...

I can't even say it was from the bench, meaning a single judge.

A Marxist DA cherry picked a Bolshevik mob of jurors to get a conviction, all legal beagle like.

ClaytonB

04-13-2023, 03:20 PM

I can't even say it was from the bench, meaning a single judge.

A Marxist DA cherry picked a Bolshevik mob of jurors to get a conviction, all legal beagle like.

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...

https://i.postimg.cc/4yWjNN3V/image.png

"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.

Brian4Liberty

04-13-2023, 03:54 PM

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/default/files/files/Transportation/Ped_Safety_and_the_Law_Austin.pdf

There were pedestrians in and out of the crosswalk. Perry created a dangerous situation. As to Brian4Liberty'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

04-13-2023, 07:55 PM

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...

https://i.postimg.cc/4yWjNN3V/image.png

"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

04-13-2023, 09:06 PM

"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

04-14-2023, 08:11 AM

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

https://www.breitbart.com/border/2023/04/13/soros-backed-texas-da-accused-of-evidence-tampering-witness-retaliation-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

04-14-2023, 04:34 PM

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NotxWhD_s3U

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

04-14-2023, 04:44 PM

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjOPLTTjnwc

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/news/local/2023/04/10/get-up-to-date-on-the-daniel-perry-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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzzYJ1aDjhM

Brian4Liberty

04-14-2023, 06:22 PM

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

04-14-2023, 06:54 PM

... 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

04-14-2023, 07:12 PM

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

04-14-2023, 08:07 PM

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

04-16-2023, 10:16 AM

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. Anti Federalist sees the point I'm making. If you don't then that's on you. Same for Brian4Liberty. Nobody that believes in liberty should be supporting Daniel Perry or his actions.

ClaytonB

04-16-2023, 10:43 AM

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--
Anti Federalist sees the point I'm making. If you don't then that's on you. Same for Brian4Liberty.

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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning). You desperately need to build some kind of "momentum" or "consensus" that Perry was wrong. Why is that?

jmdrake

04-16-2023, 10:51 AM

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a20nP535JtA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3CVQe_m1yE

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

04-16-2023, 10:53 AM

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

04-16-2023, 11:03 AM

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 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.

ClaytonB

04-16-2023, 11:23 AM

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

04-16-2023, 12:28 PM

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

04-16-2023, 01:46 PM

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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_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... :rolleyes:

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

04-16-2023, 02:01 PM

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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_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

04-16-2023, 02:39 PM

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.

https://i.postimg.cc/wBnJFdTD/image.png

RonWrightor

04-16-2023, 02:58 PM

Thank you for that honest reassessment of the video. Where you and @ClaytonB (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=35009) 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

04-16-2023, 03:37 PM

[...] 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

04-16-2023, 03:44 PM

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

04-16-2023, 03:45 PM

ClaytonB

04-16-2023, 04:00 PM

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

04-16-2023, 04:05 PM

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.

https://i.postimg.cc/pLY4Htdv/pompoms.gif

Occam's Banana

04-16-2023, 05:09 PM

[...] 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

04-16-2023, 05:26 PM

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

04-16-2023, 06:17 PM

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

04-16-2023, 06:25 PM

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

04-16-2023, 07:34 PM

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

04-16-2023, 09:08 PM

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

04-16-2023, 09:37 PM

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

04-16-2023, 09:45 PM

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

04-16-2023, 09:47 PM

//

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

jmdrake

04-16-2023, 10:32 PM

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

04-16-2023, 10:33 PM

Okay ...

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

Principles are a terrible thing to waste.

ClaytonB

04-16-2023, 10:56 PM

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???:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIqlMtmpKq8

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1otqwRDNVDo

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

04-17-2023, 02:11 PM

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZkyRWlfDzk

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

04-17-2023, 03:46 PM

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.

ClaytonB

04-17-2023, 03:57 PM

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.

And as Dr. Grande notes in the video I posted above, the burden of evidence is on the State to prove that Foster did not raise the weapon, beyond a reasonable doubt. Which the State completely did not do. And note that Foster did not have to bring the rifle to high-ready, he only needed to begin raising it in order for his behavior to be a reasonable basis for Perry to fear for his life.

jmdrake

04-17-2023, 05:37 PM

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 we're left with someone who made violent threats on social media about shooting people in a group that he didn't like because of his own personal biases, driving illegally into a crowd, creating a provocative dangerous situation, and then trying to claim self defense after knowingly violating the first prong of the self defense statute. Justice was served based on the facts and the law. Maybe you'd like a world where someone could post "I hate those Ron Paul people and I could kill one and get away with it" and then he proceeds to drive into a Ron Paul rally (I know we don't have them any more but work with me here), and when predictably someone shows up open carrying to confront him he gets the drop, shoots them first and then claims self defense. Because that's the world you're describing as your preference.

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

Don't provoke a violent situation with word and deed and then claim self defense. And if you're going to do that, have the brains to turn your dash cam to the side to capture what's going on.

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

You might have opened fire on Foster before he rolled down the window. I mean if we're going to be all wild west and crap and just say "screw it" to what the actual law says. Yeah, Foster by his own admission might have gone hunting us back in 2007/2008.

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.

I already explained it to you, but the DA, Soros funded or not, was actually following Texas law when it comes to presenting evidence to the grand jury. The "tampered with" officer had every right to present his argument to the petite jury and it's my understanding that he did. So while that "tampered" testimony might have had something to do with Foster being indicted, it had nothing to do with Foster being convicted. Foster was convicted because he went outside the self defense statute by provoking the violent situation to begin with. Again, Foster could have done the exact same thing to a Ron Paul crowd and he likely would have been met with someone open carrying walking up to his car and other people beating on his car trying to get him to stop. We are the people who threw snowballs at Sean Hannity. We are the people who grabbed someone who merely put a sign in then candidate Rand Paul's face, through the sign waiver to the ground, and stepped on his neck. I didn't agree with either of those actions. But a Daniel Foster, unhinged as he was, might have used that as an excuse, after provoking the violent encounter to shoot one of us. Keep that in mind when you're defending him. He might have killed one of us given the chance.

Occam's Banana

04-18-2023, 02:50 PM

Andrew F. Branca is a lawyer specializing in self-defense law.

I posted a video of his initial analysis of the Ralph Yarl case and I wondered if he had done any for this case.

Daniel Perry Guilty Verdict is INVALID!
Two days ago the defense team for Daniel Perry, found guilty this past Friday for the murder of Garrett Foster, filed a motion for a new trial. Normally such motions are really just a matter of going through some hand-waving, and rarely have any substantive basis for a new trial being granted. Indeed, most of the arguments made in this motion are rather esoteric or even outright silly. That said, there is one claim by the defense that, if true, completely INVALIDATES the guilty verdict returned by this trial's jury last Friday. Join me LIVE at 3 PM ET to discuss!
https://rumble.com/v2i2l6i-daniel-perry-guilty-verdict-is-invalid.html
v2fh5y8

Here's the written analysis he mentioned in the video (sections are hidden to save space):

Daniel Perry’s Murder Conviction Was Legally Sound
Like It or Not, sufficient evidence was presented to allow the jury to reject self-defense. A Pardon may happen for political reasons, but that’s politics not law.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/04/daniel-perrys-murder-conviction-was-legally-sound/
Andrew Branca (09 April 2023)

This past Friday, April 7, 2023, Daniel Perry was found guilty in the 2020 murder of Garret Foster during a Black Lives Matter protest in Austin.

The confrontation between the two men occurred as Perry was driving his Uber vehicle amongst a crowd of protestors in the street, and while Foster was among the protestors carrying an AK-47 on a sling. The rifle-armed Foster approached the driver’s side door of Perry’s car, Perry rolled down his window, and shot at Foster five times with a pistol, striking him with three rounds, effectively killing Foster instantly.

Perry would flee the scene a short distance, during which another protestor would fire three shots, striking Perry’s vehicle. Perry then called 911, and was shortly thereafter approached by and spoke with a responding police officer. (Both of these conversations were, of course, recorded and admitted as evidence at trial.)

From the start Perry would be arguing that he shot Foster in self-defense, and only after Foster had pointed his rifle at Perry.

The Key Issue in the Trial: Was the Rifle Pointed at Perry?
And right there we have the key issue in this murder trial. Certainly, if the jury believed that Perry fired only after Foster pointed his rifle at him, there could hardly be a clearer case of self-defense. Indeed, as someone who personally carries a firearm for self-defense on a regular basis, anyone who unlawfully points a rifle at me ought to have a high expectation of getting shot in self-defense.

Immediately following the announcement of the guilty verdict, social media rather exploded with outrage at a guilty verdict so insanely inconsistent with Perry’s narrative of shooting in self-defense only after facing the muzzle of Foster’s rifle.

The problem with this outrage, however, is that it presumes as an indisputable fact that Foster initiated the deadly force confrontation by pointing his rifle at Perry.

That “fact,” however, is not indisputable. Indeed, that fact was aggressively disputed by the prosecution, which argued to the jury that Foster never pointed his rifle at Perry, and so Perry’s claimed legal grounds for shooting Foster in self-defense simply doesn’t exist.

In support of this narrative of guilt the prosecution presented the testimony of multiple witnesses who told the jury that Foster never pointed his rifle at Perry. The confrontation itself was captured on poor quality video, from which screen captures were secured, and neither video nor stills ever show Foster pointing his gun at Perry.

Indeed, the only evidence to support Perry’s claim of Foster pointing his rifle at him are Perry’s own self-serving statements following the shooting.

If the jury concluded that Foster had not, in fact, pointed his rifle at Perry, then it must also conclude that it was Perry who was the initial deadly force aggressor in this confrontation when he shot Foster—and, as the initial deadly force aggressor Perry cannot justify his use of force as self-defense.
Competing Narratives of Guilt and Innocence
In effect, then we have these two competing narratives, both hinging on this question of Forster’s pointing of the rifle.

First, we have Perry’s narrative of innocence, the narrative of Foster initiating the deadly force confrontation by pointing his rifle at Perry, evidenced solely by his own self-serving statements, and utterly lacking in any corrobation.

Second, we have the State’s narrative of guilt, the narrative of Foster never pointing his rifle at Perry and of Perry initiating the deadly force confrontation by firing five pistol rounds at Foster, evidence by the testimony of multiple witnesses (https://www.statesman.com/story/news/local/2023/03/29/daniel-perry-trial-shooting-death-austin-protester-garrett-foster-witnesses-say-didnt-raise-rifle/70060062007/) and uncontradicted by any other evidence presented at trial (other than Perry’s own statements).
Fact Questions Are Solely Within Province of Jury
This is, obviously, purely a question of fact, and as such it falls exclusively within the purview of the finders of fact, the jury. They are free to believe either narrative and return a verdict consistent with the narrative they find most compelling.

This being a criminal trial the jury must, of course find for the defendant unless they believe the State’s narrative has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt—in this case, that Perry’s claim of self-defense has been disproven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The question then becomes could a rational jury faced with these two competing narratives, each based on their own foundations of evidence, reasonably conclude that the State’s narrative of guilt disproved Perry’s narrative of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, and return a verdict of guilty.
Factors a Jury Considers in Weighing Credibility
When presented with competing narratives, as here, the jury is routinely instructed on how to go about evaluating the credibility of each. They are told to consider a wide variety of factors that can play a role in determining the weight to the witness testimony and other evidence that supports one narrative or the other.

In the context of witness testimony the jury is told to consider the witness’s opportunity to have seen what they are testifying about, the apparent quality of the witness’s memory, their manner while testifying, their interest in the outcome of the case, their bias or prejudice, whether other evidence contradicted or corroborated their testimony, the reasonableness of the witness’ testimony in light of all the evidence, as well as any other factors the jury thought useful.

I would suggest that a genuinely unbiased, impartial jury could easily come to that conclusion and that verdict on the evidence presented in this trial. As a result, this verdict of guilty is legally sound and meritorious—even if any one of us doesn’t particularly like the outcome for political, social, or personal reasons.
Evidence Showed Perry Undermined His Own Credibility
Unfortunately for Perry, when considering his own testimony with respect to the alleged pointing of the rifle, a claim for which he is the only source, in light of the factors just described that a jury is told to apply in evaluating credibility, Perry’s own conduct substantially undermined his narrative of innocence.

The prosecution presented the jury with social media messages of Perry’s from which they might reasonably infer that Perry was looking for an opportunity to use deadly force against protestors. One Facebook message stated “I might have to kill a few people on my way to work.” In a Facebook comment about a video showing protestors being shot in San Antonio earlier that year, Perry wrote that he was “glad someone finally did something.”

Is it possible that these and other similar social media comments were simply expressions of bravado? Certainly no one who believed that they might really have a substantive need to kill people on their way to work that day would simply proceed to work in the normal manner. So perhaps this was merely bravado. The jury, however, is free to instead agree with the State’s preferred inference that they illustrate the state of mind of a man looking for a deadly force confrontation.

And when you go to the fight, folks, rather than the fight coming to you, it rarely looks like self-defense to anybody.

The defense sought to counter this inference by arguing that Perry find himself enmeshed in that night’s fatal Black Lives Matter protest entirely innocently, having no idea that the protest was even taking place. According to the defense, Perry simply made a right-hand turn, and boom, found himself surrounded by angry protestors slapping and kicking his vehicle.

The prosecution, however, was able to show that Perry’s interest in these protests was substantial, suggesting that the notion that Perry would not be aware the protest was taking place was simply not credible. Further, there was evidence at trial that as an Army sergeant stationed 70 miles away at Fort Hood, he was explicitly prohibited by his command from going to Austin (https://www.statesman.com/story/news/local/2023/03/31/daniel-perry-trial-austin-protester-garrett-foster-officer-testifies-victim-warned-way-carried-rifle/70066884007/), presumably because of the risk of confrontation with protestors.

Another example of Perry undermining his own narrative of innocent self-defense occurred when he reportedly told 911 that he “panicked” (https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/police-bodycam-video-shows-officers-interviewing-daniel-perry-after-deadly-shooting#:~:text=On%20Friday%2C%20a%20Travis%20Cou nty,going%20to%20come%20after%20me.%22) when he fired five rounds at Foster. Deadly force self-defense is often accompanied by a variety of emotions, including fear and even anger. Within that context, however, the use of defensive force must still be objectively reasonable—a merely irrational belief in the need to kill in self-defense, however genuine and in good faith that belief might be, is not sufficient to support a claim of self-defense. And panicked conduct is, by definition, irrational, not reasoned, conduct, and therefore inconsistent with a legal justification of self-defense.

Further undermining Perry’s narrative of self-defense was the testimony of one witness who was able to observe Perry’s demeanor as he shot Foster. When asked if that demeanor reflected fear or anger, the witness answered “His expression … anger. It wasn’t fear.” (https://www.statesman.com/story/news/local/2023/03/30/daniel-perry-murder-trial-austin-protester-garrett-foster-shot-three-times-witnesses-testify/70062493007/) This testimony was consistent with the State’s narrative that Perry was angrily seeking out an opportunity for a deadly force confrontation, and that his anger overwhelmed him when he heard and felt his car being slapped and kicked, culminating when he found Foster to be a target for his desire to kill.

And what was there to counter the State’s narrative of guilt and support Perry’s claim that Foster had initiated the deadly force confrontation by pointing his rifle at Perry? Nothing.
Perry’s Decision to Not Testify: Sound, or Error?
It is worth noting here that Perry elected to not take the stand and testify in his own defense. A criminal jury is told, of course, that the defendant has no obligation to take the stand, and the jury is not to make any inference of guilt if the defendant chooses to not testify.

But in a case where the only evidence consistent with the defense narrative of innocence could have come only from the defendant, one can only hope that the defense had an exceptionally excellent reason for not putting Perry on the stand. Putting one’s client on the stand is, of course, perilous under the best of circumstances—but in a case of self-defense, where the only exculpatory evidence can come from the defendant, I would suggest that the jury really needs to hear from the defendant himself why the killing of that other human being was genuinely necessary.

Given what was admitted into evidence from Perry’s social media, one must also wonder whether there was even more inflammatory social media content that had been excluded from evidence by the judge on the grounds of being excessively prejudicial, but which would have been admissible as character evidence had Perry taken the stand. If so, that would explain why the defense declined to have him testify.
Photo Purporting to Show Pointed Rifle
I have seen posted on Twitter a photo that purports to actually show Foster pointing his rifle at Perry—indeed, it was posted at least once by my good friend, Jack Posobiec (I’ve a lot of respect for Jack, and urge you to follow him on Twitter at @JackPosobiec (https://twitter.com/@jackposobiec)). Here’s the tweet that Jack posted purporting to show Foster pointing his rifle at Perry (note that the diagonal red line is a feature I added to this image):

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1644518046784995331
https://i.imgur.com/6j57qNG.png

With all due respect to Jack, and to others promoting this image as evidence of Foster pointing his rifle at Perry, I simply don’t see it. If anything, it appears to me that Foster has his rifle held in a quite vertical fashion, rather than in the much more horizontal manner that would be required to orient the muzzle of his rifle at Perry. For clarity, I added to this image the red diagonal line in order to indicate what I perceive to be the approximate orientation of Foster’s rifle.
Jury Verdict Does NOT Require Absolute Certainty
It’s important to remember that in almost any criminal trial the jury never really knows what happened in any absolute sense. They can only very rarely be 100% confident that the verdict they arrive at is correct or true. As noted, we bias criminal trials in favor of the defendant by requiring that the State prove the crime—and, in this context, disprove self-defense—beyond any reasonable doubt.

But the State is NOT required to disprove self-defense beyond ALL doubt.

Could a rational jury have decided to give greater weight and credibility to Perry’s narrative of self-defense, conclude that self-defense had NOT been disproved beyond a reasonable doubt, and reasonably returned a verdict of not guilty?

Sure.

But any fair, impartial, unbiased view of the evidence presented in this trial must also conclude that a rational jury could also have decided to give greater weight and credibility to the State’s narrative of guilt, conclude that the state had disproven self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, and reasonably return a verdict of guilty.

As this jury did.

Does that mean this jury returned the “correct” verdict in the sense of absolute truth? Of course not. But that’s not what the legal system requires. Because nobody ever knows what the absolute truth is.
Dispelling Some Political Talking Points Around This Case
Before I let you all go this Easter Sunday, I do want to take a moment to address some of the more emotional and political talking points circling around this guilty verdict. I want to make clear that I don’t mean to suggest any malicious state of mind with respect to anybody espousing these talking points. Indeed, in the context of social and political discussion and debate they have merit.

In the context of legal analysis, however, these talking points are leading well-intentioned people to bad legal conclusions. This doesn’t make these people bad, it makes them normal—but bad legal reasoning rarely arrives at the right legal answer.

Garza Is Just a Soros-Funded Politically-Motivated Prosecutor

One of these talking points is that the local prosecutor, District Attorney Jose Garza, is another Soros-funded politically-motivated prosecutors intent on wreaking havoc in their communities, much along the lines of New York District Attorney who is bringing a feckless prosecution against President Trump, St. Louis Circuit Attorney who sought to prosecute the McCloskeys until her entire office was removed from the case for misconduct, and Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon whose Progressive mishandling of criminal cases led even the liberal populace of Los Angeles to seek his recall, Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby’s vicious and unjust prosecution of six police officers over the death of Freddie Gray, amongst many other Soros-funded prosecutorial monsters.

And I have every reason to believe that this representation of Garza is correct, and that Garza was motivated to bring Perry to trial largely for political purposes—particularly after local law enforcement investigated and concluded that Perry’s shooting of Foster was lawful.

The political motivations of Garza, however, do nothing to change the law and evidence of the trial—and those, as discussed, are more than sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to arrive at a verdict of guilty in this case.

Zimmerman and Rittenhouse were acquitted despite being politically prosecuted because the evidence was on their side. Perry may have been convicted in this likely politically motivated prosecution because in his case the evidence was contrary to self-defense.

Did Garza Commit Misconduct in Hiding Exculpatory Evidence from Grand Jury?

Another of these talking points also involves Garza, and alleges that he engaged in criminal witness tampering when he ordered a police investigator to strip out exculpatory evidence from the officer’s testimony to the grand jury. It has been reported that of about 150 Powerpoint slides the officer intended to present to the grand jury, 100 slides covering exculpatory evidence were ordered removed. (The investigator in question filed a sworn affidavit in this manner, and I’ve imbedded below for those who are interested.)

[AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID FUGITT (https://www.scribd.com/document/637121100/Affidavit-Witness-Tampering) @ SCRIBD]

Such conduct certainly would strike most reasonable people as unfair—after all, shouldn’t the grand jury be entitled to hear both sides of the story, both the narrative of guilt and the narrative of evidence, both the incriminating evidence and the exculpatory evidence.

Perhaps surprisingly, the answer to that question is: No.

The role of a grand jury is explicitly not to hear both sides of the argument—hearing both sides of the argument is the role of the trial jury, not the grand jury. For all practical purposes, the role of the grand jury is to hear ONLY the evidence consistent with guilt, only the evidence the prosecution has to present, and then decide if even that one-sided presentation of evidence is insufficient to prove guilt at trial. If they so conclude, they return a no true bill, meaning no indictment, and therefore no trial.

As you might expect, anybody who hears only one side of an argument tends to find the only side they hear to be pretty compelling. The result is that grand juries generally return to the prosecutor what the prosecutor wants—and, of course, prosecutors generally want an indictment, so that’s what they get.

There was no obligation on the part of DA Garza to present ANY exculpatory evidence to the grand jury, and so it is not misconduct for him to decline to do so. (I note that there appears to be a bill working through the Texas legislature that would impose such an obligation, which I certainly support, but it’s not currently law.)

Now, it is true that in rare cases prosecutors are ambiguous about whether they really want an indictment, or they are using a grand jury as political cover to not bring a suspect to trial. In such a case the prosecutor, at their discretion, might present the grand jury with both sides of the story, with exculpatory as well as incriminating evidence. When a prosecutor does that, it’s a pretty strong indication that they prefer that an indictment not be returned.

This happened in the 2014 case of the Michael Brown shooting. Then St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch presented the grand jury with both the incriminating and exculpatory evidence in the shooting death of Brown by police officer Darren Wilson—and the grand jury declined to indict the officer.

It’s worth noting, however, that this decision by McCulloch to present the Michael Brown grand jury with a balanced rendition of the facts of the shooting cost him his career. Indeed, McCulloch had been the St. Louis County Prosecutor for no less than 19 years, having come to office in 1991 and winning re-election 6 times—often unopposed, but winning by large margins when he did have an opponent.

In the next election after the grand jury’s refusal to indict in the Brown case, however, McCulloch found himself challenged by a young, relatively inexperienced attorney who would normally have had little chance to win—but in the politics of the time, and with the substantial financial backing of none other than George Soros, defeated McCulloch handily by more than 13 percentage points.

If you’re wondering if that sends a warning message to other prosecutors about presenting a grand jury with both sides of the story in politically charged cases, you’d be right.

But the Police Initially Believed Perry’s Acted in Self-Defense!

Much has also been made of the testimony of an officer early on the scene who told the jury that he did not initially arrest Perry because he perceived that Perry’s shooting of Foster might well have been in lawful self-defense.

And this is sound decision-making by the officer. If there is evidence consistent with self-defense, the officer ought to consider that evidence before making a mindless decision to subject a lawful defender to arrest and everything that comes with that arrest.

In this particular case, however, the officer’s perception of evidence consistent with self-defense was largely a misperception.

In particular, the officer based his initial conclusion of self-defense on a bullet hole in Perry’s car. The officer inferred that this bullet hole had been caused by the initial use of unlawful force against Perry, against which he defended himself in lawful self-defense.

In fact, that’s not the case, and the defense never made that argument. That’s because it was uncontroverted that Foster never fired his AK-47, so Foster could not have initially caused that bullet hole in Perry’s car, providing the justification for Perry to shoot back.

In fact, the bullet hole in Perry’s car was caused by a bystander who shot three times at the car as Perry fled the scene of the shooting. That being the case, the bullet hole in the car could have provided no justification for Perry’s shooting of Foster.

It is true that something like 24 different sets of prints were secured from the outside of Perry’s vehicle, as well as some apparent shoe prints, but slapping and kicking of a car by itself could not justify Perry’s decision to shoot dead Garrett Foster. Indeed, a claim by Perry that this slapping and kicking of his car was reasonably perceived by him as a deadly force attack, which would require breaching of vehicle, is inconsistent with Perry’s decision to lower his window when approached by Foster. It’s also noteworthy that if you look at the paired videos embedded above, while there are some people around Perry’s vehicle, he’s hardly awash in a sea of protestors–another example of how our genuinely held understanding about an event can be biased by bad information acquired through second-hand sources.
Compare and Contrast with Kyle Rittenhouse Shooting of Rosenbaum
Before I wrap up, it’s worth suggesting a small thought experiment. If you can, strip away your own political biases and preferences—which we all have, but which can interfere with sound legal analysis—and try this:

Consider the facts of the Kyle Rittenhouse case—and I expect most of us were in favor of Kyle’s acquittal—and the facts of the Daniel Perry case—I expect much more emotionally troublesome for most of us—and see if you can identify any interesting parallels.

If Kyle had lost his fight with Joseph Rosenbaum for control of his rifle, and Rosenbaum and killed Kyle with his own weapon, would we have said that was a justified killing—that it was the rifle-armed Kyle who was the initial aggressor in that confrontation, and that Rosenbaum simply killed Kyle in self-defense?

Of course, in the Rittenhouse case we had the benefit of the video of Rosenbaum’s attack, clearly showing Rosenbaum to be the aggressor—but what if we hadn’t had such clear video evidence, as we don’t have here in the Perry case?

A sound argument could be made that Garrett Foster was the rifle-armed Kyle Rittenhouse on that fatal night in Austin, going about armed not to commit unlawful acts but for purposes of defense of himself and other protestors, and that Daniel Perry was the Joseph Rosenbaum of that night, seeking out a deadly force confrontation.

In this case, of course, Foster lost his gunfight with Perry—but had Foster reacted quickly to Perry’s presentation of his pistol and shot Perry first, killing him, would Foster be in much a different legal position than that of Kyle Rittenhouse with respect to Rosenbaum?
Concluding Caveats
Also, a couple of caveats.

First, on an emotional level this was not a particularly easy analysis for me to write. I’ve shot guns since childhood, I’ve carried a gun for personal protection essentially every day of my adult life, I’m an NRA Life-Benefactor member, I’m a decades-long NRA Certified Instructor in pistol, rifle, and personal protection, I’m on the political Right, and I believe George Soros and the prosecutors he funds to be political enemies of my nation.

Indeed, I can already see on social media that the large majority—perhaps the entirety—of the folks I would typically expect to be on my side of the political divide have taken it as a matter of nearly religious faith that Daniel Perry has simply been railroaded by a Soros-funded prosecutor, that we’re dealing here with what could have happened had George Zimmerman or Kyle Rittenhouse been wrongfully convicted.

But a proper legal analysis must be done rationally, independent of emotion and political or other biases. The evidence and the law must guide us in our analysis. Sometimes the destination we arrive at will be unpleasant. That does not make it legally unsound, however, and forcing a legal conclusion to satisfy emotional and political desires is simply not sound legal analysis.

Second, even this analysis of this trial is being made under unusually unpleasant constraints. If you’re wondering why I didn’t cover the Perry trial live, as I do so many other high-profile trials, it’s because the trial was not televised.

As a result, I was not able to watch the trial in real time, hear and see the evidence and legal arguments presented first-hand. Instead, I’m obliged to rely on the reporting of the evidence and legal arguments as made through various media reports—and journalists are not a class of people I generally find to be well-informed or insightful.

Unfortunately, because the trial was not televised, the media reports are all any of us can use as source content for analysis, assuming we were not personally present in the court room (and none of us were). Indeed, everybody commenting on the Perry trial and verdict who did not watch the actual proceedings can have only the most limited understanding of what actually occurred in that court room—including myself.
The Bottom Line: Guilty Verdict is Legally Sound
The bottom line, however, is this:

Given the evidence and legal arguments that the media covering this trial has chosen to make us aware, a rational and impartial jury was presented here with sufficient evidence to conclude that the State had disproven Daniel Perry’s claim of self-defense in the shooting death of Garrett Forster beyond a reasonable death and return a legally sound verdict of guilty.
Sentencing: Expect Life
It’s been reported that Perry’s sentencing may occur as early as this Tuesday, April 11, which is pretty quick as these things go. Whenever that sentencing occurs, however, I would expect Perry to be sentenced to the maximum of life in prison, consistent with the jury’s verdict in this case.

WHAT ABOUT APPEALING THE CONVICTION?

I’m sure many people are wondering about the prospects for a successful appeal of this conviction.

As I like to say, folks, appeals are for losers.

First, you only appeal if you lost at trial–if you won an acquittal at trial, you’re free to go.

Second, appeals are not like a second bite at the legal apple. At trial all the legal presumptions are in your favor–you are presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Once you have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, however, now you are presumed guilty, and all the legal presumptions are against you.

My good friend and fellow Attorney Steve Gosney (https://stevegosney.com/) has researched how often appeals result in meaningful relief, and he’s found this occurs in less than 1% of appeals. And meaningful relief generally means either a reduction in sentence, or an entire second trial–it almost never means the appellate court simply sets you free.

In any case, for an appeal to be viable there would have to be some claimed legal error, usually that was preserved by appeal, and that the appellate court agrees was not harmless error (had the legal error not been made the verdict would have been not guilty). Claimed errors in facts, especially in the fact finding of the jury, is not a province in which the appellate courts are inclined to intervene. Nor are they inclined to reverse evidentiary and other decisions of the trial judgment, absent outright abuse of discretion.

Not having been able to observe the actual trial proceedings, I can’t have a good sense of what types of claimed errors might be subject to appeal, and I certainly can’t rely on journalist recaps of the proceedings for that purpose. But even if such can be found, again: appeals are for losers.

WHAT ABOUT A PARDON?

There have been media reports that Texas Governor Greg Abbott has announced his intention to take an expedited look at a pardon for Perry.

The bad news for Perry is that any such pardon really can’t be based on legal merit, for all the reasons discussed above.

The more bad news for Perry is that a Texas governor doesn’t have the independent authority to issue a pardon–more technically, the pardon power is not plenary to the governor of Texas. There is a board that must first review the case and recommend pardon–only then can Governor Abbott pardon Perry. If the review board decides against a pardon, Abbott lacks the power to issue one himself. And, once again, any such pardon recommendation for the review board really can’t be based on legal merit, for all the reasons discussed above.

That said, there is also good news for Perry on the pardon front–there’s no particular reason that a pardon need be based on legal merit. Indeed, more often than not the legal merits are largely ignored in considering a pardon.

The reason for this is that ultimately pardons are political decisions, not legal decisions. They typically purport to take into considerations greater notions of justice and fairness than the criminal justice system is built to deal with. (Or, sometimes, as we’ve seen in the case of some past presidents, pardons are simply revenue-generating opportunities, though that would not seem to be the case in this instance.)

So, sure, Daniel Perry has a shot at a pardon, if both the relevant review board and Governor Abbott decide its in their political interests to recommend and sign a pardon for him.

If either does not, of course, then Perry’s simply out of luck on the pardon front.
And that’s all I have for all of you today, folks.

I you like this kind of self-defense law insight, you can click this link to obtain your own FREE copy of my best-selling book, “The Law of Self Defense: Principles.” (https://lawofselfdefense.com/freebook)

Occam's Banana

05-10-2023, 03:33 PM

Sgt Daniel Perry sentenced to 25 years for fatal 2020 shooting of gun-toting BLM activist
Attorney for Perry, Clinton Broden, said that his client would appeal the sentence, calling the conviction the product of "political prosecution."
https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-sgt-daniel-perry-sentenced-to-25-years-for-fatal-2020-shooting-of-gun-toting-blm-activist
Hannah Nightingale (10 May 2023)

US Army sergeant Daniel Perry was sentenced to 25 years in prison on Wednesday for the fatal shooting of 28-year-old Garrett Foster during a 2020 Black Lives Matter protest in Austin, Texas.

According to the Associated Press (https://apnews.com/article/black-lives-matter-protest-shooting-texas-sentence-3fff311aa2ebcca5c2dd31a4c9b02c29), attorney for Perry, Clinton Broden, said that his client would appeal the sentence, calling the conviction the product of "political prosecution" and added that the defense team would "fully cooperate in the pardon process."

Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced in April that he was working "swiftly" to pardon Perry, and that "I look forward to approving the Board’s pardon recommendation as soon as it hits my desk."

Perry was found guilty of murder in April of the 2020 fatal shooting of Foster.

Perry, who worked as an Uber driver at the time, encountered an armed BLM group that had taken over the streets of Austin on July 25, 2020. Perry turned onto a street with his vehicle, where he was surrounded.

“I made a wrong turn, a guy pointed a freakin weapon at me and I panicked. I don’t know what to do. I’m just an Uber driver. I made a wrong turn; I’ve never had to shoot someone before. They started shooting back at me, and I got out of the area,” Perry told a 911 operator that night.

Anti Federalist

05-10-2023, 05:16 PM

ClaytonB

05-10-2023, 05:54 PM

Just noticed this...

Daniel Perry’s Murder Conviction Was Legally Sound
It is true that something like 24 different sets of prints were secured from the outside of Perry’s vehicle, as well as some apparent shoe prints, but slapping and kicking of a car by itself could not justify Perry’s decision to shoot dead Garrett Foster. Indeed, a claim by Perry that this slapping and kicking of his car was reasonably perceived by him as a deadly force attack, which would require breaching of vehicle, is inconsistent with Perry’s decision to lower his window when approached by Foster. It’s also noteworthy that if you look at the paired videos embedded above, while there are some people around Perry’s vehicle, he’s hardly awash in a sea of protestors–another example of how our genuinely held understanding about an event can be biased by bad information acquired through second-hand sources.

Does this guy believe his readers are complete idiots? This paragraph is self-contradictory. Just read the two bolded parts in sequence. 24 people is 6 on a side... yes, that's AWASH in rioters who were raining down blows on his vehicle hard enough that they are audible on a dashcam inside a vehicle across the intersection! And the video which is being cited as evidence that Perry's car is not awash in rioters is bogus because the relevant portion of the video (when his car became surrounded by protestors) is actually pointed behind Perry's car, by about 1 car-length, so you cannot actually see Perry's car in-frame as it becomes surrounded. I've frame-by-framed this with the YouTube video that put the dashcam video side-by-side with the cellphone footage shot from the side street. Perry's car is actually out-of-frame of the cellphone footage as the protestors converge upon it. But it is still in-frame in the dashcam footage. And the convergence of the protestors on Perry's car is clearly visible in that video.

Occam's Banana

05-10-2023, 06:18 PM

Does this guy believe his readers are complete idiots? This paragraph is self-contradictory. Just read the two bolded parts in sequence. 24 people is 6 on a side... yes, that's AWASH in rioters who were raining down blows on his vehicle hard enough that they are audible on a dashcam inside a vehicle across the intersection! And the video which is being cited as evidence that Perry's car is not awash in rioters is bogus because the relevant portion of the video (when his car became surrounded by protestors) is actually pointed [i]behind[i] Perry's car, by about 1 car-length, so you cannot actually see Perry's car in-frame as it becomes surrounded. I've frame-by-framed this with the YouTube video that put the dashcam video side-by-side with the cellphone footage shot from the side street. Perry's car is actually out-of-frame of the cellphone footage as the protestors converge upon it. But it is still in-frame in the dashcam footage. And the convergence of the protestors on Perry's car is clearly visible in that video.

"Your Honor, this is outrageous! Twenty-four people clearly exceeds the statutorily-specified minimum for 'awashness' as it pertains to justifiable self-defense. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you cannot convict! I rest my case."

ClaytonB

05-10-2023, 06:55 PM

"Your Honor, this is outrageous! Twenty-four people clearly exceeds the statutorily-specified minimum for 'awashness' as it pertains to justifiable self-defense. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you cannot convict! I rest my case."

Way to miss the point. Not sure why you're so eager to drink the Soros Kool-Aid, but suit yourself. The point is that the paragraph written by the transparently politically-motivated analyst is self-contradictory. It's just analysis, not legal argument. But it's shitty analysis.

Occam's Banana

05-10-2023, 07:34 PM

Way to miss the point. Not sure why you're so eager to drink the Soros Kool-Aid, but suit yourself. The point is that the paragraph written by the transparently politically-motivated analyst is self-contradictory. It's just analysis, not legal argument. But it's shitty analysis.

The only point I can discern is that you disagree with his use of a particular word in a metaphor you don't like. That's certainly your prerogative - but it doesn't mean he contradicted himself, any more than my pointing this out means I'm a "drink[er of] the Soros Kool-Aid". (LOL - I support an acquittal or pardon, but I can understand why some - like jmdrake - do not, without thinking they are "transparently politically-motivated" Soros apologists).

jmdrake

05-11-2023, 04:58 AM

The only point I can discern is that you disagree with his use of a particular word in a metaphor you don't like. That's certainly your prerogative - but it doesn't mean he contradicted himself, any more than my pointing this out means I'm a "drink[er of] the Soros Kool-Aid". (LOL - I support an acquittal or pardon, but I can understand why some - like jmdrake - do not, without thinking they are "transparently politically-motivated" Soros apologists).

Thank you for posting this. Earlier you posted the video from a lawyer that thought Daniel Perry was innocent. That shows you aren't biased unlike some people here. And there are people that just aren't worth arguing with. That's not a criticism of you for trying to reach the unreachable. Call it a "self reflection."
Anti Federalist. I'm just going to ask you about a couple of pictures. You're the gun expert, not me. Does Garrett Foster look like he's holding his rifle in a way to be assaulting Daniel Perry?

https://i.imgur.com/6j57qNG.png

Daniel Perry's cop expert witness seems to think you shouldn't be able to hold your rifle like that.

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2023/03/28/NAAS/8c45697b-70cb-4861-ad5c-7decc8804035-20230328_daniel_perry_trial_mlc_02845.jpg?width=66 0&height=441&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp

Do you agree with the cop expert?

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/local/2023/03/31/daniel-perry-trial-austin-protester-garrett-foster-officer-testifies-victim-warned-way-carried-rifle/70066884007/

Senior Austin officer Brent Cleveland said during Perry's trial late Thursday that Foster was "visibly and verbally not receptive" to the police criticism. Cleveland said he never spoke to Foster but had seen him carry an AK-47 in a strap slung with the barrel pointed down in previous protests. He told jurors that if Perry had raised the barrel even a small amount, it could be considered threatening.

AK-47 rifle bullets can penetrate car doors and police vests, Cleveland said. The officer testified that if he had encountered someone with an AK-47 who was carrying the rifle slung down like Foster was, and that person raised the barrel slightly, then he would shoot them.

Do you agree with that assessment? Seems like that would justify cops shooting a lot of people you agree with.

https://e3.365dm.com/20/08/2048x1152/skynews-kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-gunman_5079701.jpg

https://i.cbc.ca/1.5551388.1599170844!/fileImage/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/16x9_780/health-coronavirus-usa-michigan.JPG

You're soooooo focused on Daniel Perry's right to self defense that you're ignoring Garrett Foster's right to self defense. Why is that? Or is it just the "code of the old west, the fastest draw wins?" If Garrett had seen Perry put his gun on the dashboard and shot him first would you be arguing that passionately against Garrett getting 25 years?

Anyhow, I think going forward there are two indispensable accessories when you're rifle carrying, a bullet resistant vest and a body camera. Or better yet, just leave the damn rifle at home. Whether you're on the left or on the right. Yeah...that goes for Rittenhouse too. Carry a sidearm. You can keep it holstered at the ready to quickly withdraw and shoot if necessary. I can see rifles on rooftops, but not the best choice of weapon when walking in crowds. And with the bullet resistant vest your life isn't to 100% dependent on you "shooting first and asking questions later." I'm not a gun owner, but I think I'll work on getting body armor first.

tod evans

05-11-2023, 06:01 AM

jmdrake

05-11-2023, 06:40 AM

I don't believe juries are supposed to consider evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
As to the shooters 'perception' of the rioter, that is of course subjective and unless I'm all wet, is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant(shooter).
This approach works flawlessly if the shooter is wearing a blue costume with a badge.

So....if someone just point blank shot Kyle Rittenhouse for carrying his gun exactly the same way as Garret Foster was carrying his when Daniel Perry shot him, you'd be cool with Kyle's killer getting off scot free just because Kyle's killer "perceived" open carrying your rifle at the ready with it pointed down to be a threat? And where does that end? "I perceived she wanted to have sex with me and that we were roleplaying when she said stop." Or "I perceived he really wanted to give me his wallet." And, Daniel Perry didn't testify. So none of his "perceptions" were even under oath.

tod evans

05-11-2023, 07:12 AM

So....if someone just point blank shot Kyle Rittenhouse for carrying his gun exactly the same way as Garret Foster was carrying his when Daniel Perry shot him, you'd be cool with Kyle's killer getting off scot free just because Kyle's killer "perceived" open carrying your rifle at the ready with it pointed down to be a threat? And where does that end? "I perceived she wanted to have sex with me and that we were roleplaying when she said stop." Or "I perceived he really wanted to give me his wallet." And, Daniel Perry didn't testify. So none of his "perceptions" were even under oath.

As a general rule I have no problem with average Joe shooting and even killing anybody if they're able to articulate a believable reason. However I will always hold governments employees to a higher standard and will view their actions as malicious unless they can prove otherwise.
So in your hypothetical with Rittenhouse it would depend who was doing the shooting and why they said that they shot.

ClaytonB

05-11-2023, 08:06 AM

Does Garrett Foster look like he's holding his rifle in a way to be assaulting Daniel Perry?

The photo is consistent with Perry's explanation that he fired after Foster began raising his rifle. He never said anything about "high ready", only that he believed Foster was about to point the rifle at him.

He told jurors that if Perry had raised the barrel even a small amount, it could be considered threatening.

Which is correct.

When I was a kid, I was puzzled as to why open carry is not restricted as much as concealed. The grown-ups explained it to me: the idea of open carry is that others are aware that you are armed and, if you were to become a threat, you can be dealt with quickly, but if you're carrying concealed, you can become a surprise threat to others, and they will not have an opportunity to prepare to defend themselves.

You're soooooo focused on Daniel Perry's right to self defense that you're ignoring Garrett Foster's right to self defense. Why is that? Or is it just the "code of the old west, the fastest draw wins?"

It's one of the closest cases in modern times to a Western gun-draw. As for Foster's right to self-defense, don't forget that he was on the streets to support BLM/Antifa rioters who were burning and looting cities nationwide at that time. Was this particular group looting and rioting? No, but they were rowdy and you can see that from the dashcam footage and the immediate rain of blows that the crowd began delivering to Perry's car as soon as he came around the corner and honked.

If Garrett had seen Perry put his gun on the dashboard and shot him first would you be arguing that passionately against Garrett getting 25 years?

As Dr. Grande summarized it in the video I linked above, both Perry and Foster appear to have been "out for trouble". Foster, as a supporter for the rioting-and-burning organizations BLM/Antifa, and Perry as a hot-head who expressed a belief (whether sincere or not) that these people could be shot without consequence. That they ended up in this situation is their own fault, and that Foster turned up dead is really no one's fault but his own. He was playing a dangerous, high-stakes game and he lost his life as a result. Punishing Perry for Foster's folly fixes nothing. The only question in the Perry case is whether the prosecution proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that Perry did not intend to defend himself but, instead, intended to commit murder.

Dr.3D

05-11-2023, 08:20 AM

Only the person defending himself can truly know in his own mind if he was afraid for his life.
This is something that can not be proven in court. A jury can not know for certain if he was afriad for his life or not.

Anti Federalist

05-11-2023, 08:24 AM

Anti Federalist. I'm just going to ask you about a couple of pictures. You're the gun expert, not me. Does Garrett Foster look like he's holding his rifle in a way to be assaulting Daniel Perry?

Honest answer...possibly.

Would I have taken that shot? Possibly.

In the picture you provided, I can not see his trigger hand. Foster's right arm does look like it is away from his body, indicating a move to a "high ready" position.

Given that Perry was lower and to the left of Foster in the seat of his car, and if there had been some threatening talk and if his finger was on the trigger, then yes, I would have shot as well.

Lacking that, I would have held off.

Yeah...that goes for Rittenhouse too. Carry a sidearm. You can keep it holstered at the ready to quickly withdraw and shoot if necessary. I can see rifles on rooftops, but not the best choice of weapon when walking in crowds. And with the bullet resistant vest your life isn't to 100% dependent on you "shooting first and asking questions later." I'm not a gun owner, but I think I'll work on getting body armor first.

You are right about this, with exception of Rittenhouse. He was 17 at the time, which prohibited him from carrying a handgun.

I think that a "reasonable person" could have determined that his life was in danger and react with lethal force.

I am in favor of a pardon more because I think this was a political prosecution and there is legitimate evidence of jury and evidence hanky panky.

jmdrake

05-11-2023, 08:33 AM

Nothing worth reading or responding to.

Hello. in this thread you've shown yourself to be irrational so I'm not bothering even reading what you write. i don't mind engaging with you about ChatGPT or other AI issues in other threads. But I don't see the point in either of us wasting our time. Have a splendid day!

jmdrake

05-11-2023, 08:36 AM

As a general rule I have no problem with average Joe shooting and even killing anybody if they're able to articulate a believable reason. However I will always hold governments employees to a higher standard and will view their actions as malicious unless they can prove otherwise.
So in your hypothetical with Rittenhouse it would depend who was doing the shooting and why they said that they shot.

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

jmdrake

05-11-2023, 08:42 AM

Honest answer...possibly.

Would I have taken that shot? Possibly.

In the picture you provided, I can not see his trigger hand. Foster's right arm does look like it is away from his body, indicating a move to a "high ready" position.

Given that Perry was lower and to the left of Foster in the seat of his car, and if there had been some threatening talk and if his finger was on the trigger, then yes, I would have shot as well.

Lacking that, I would have held off.

You are right about this, with exception of Rittenhouse. He was 17 at the time, which prohibited him from carrying a handgun.

I think that a "reasonable person" could have determined that his life was in danger and react with lethal force.

I am in favor of a pardon more because I think this was a political prosecution and there is legitimate evidence of jury and evidence hanky panky.

So. I want to make sure I understand. If one of the radicals like from the all black "Not f'ing around militia" showed up to an Oath Keeper's protest, killed someone doing exactly what you described, and happened to be in a red county with a conservative DA and got convicted, a pardon would be justified because that might be a politically motivated prosecution?

Edit: As for Kyle only being able to carry a rifle, I understand that law, but that's pretty stupid. Under those circumstances he should have been kept on the roof.

TheTexan

05-11-2023, 08:45 AM

jmdrake

05-11-2023, 08:52 AM

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

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

jmdrake

05-11-2023, 08:57 AM

That proves it was a political trial.

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

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

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

Quick Google search proves that false.

https://www.onlineathens.com/story/news/crime/2019/12/31/man-convicted-in-georgia-store-clerks-death-to-be-executed/1981545007/

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

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

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

https://www.enidnews.com/news/local_news/enid-man-sentenced-to-life-without-parole-in-store-clerks-2022-killing/article_02a25f56-eb7f-11ed-9c9c-df5d12e729c7.html

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

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

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

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

TheTexan

05-11-2023, 09:26 AM

Quick Google search proves that false.

https://www.onlineathens.com/story/news/crime/2019/12/31/man-convicted-in-georgia-store-clerks-death-to-be-executed/1981545007/

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

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

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

https://www.enidnews.com/news/local_news/enid-man-sentenced-to-life-without-parole-in-store-clerks-2022-killing/article_02a25f56-eb7f-11ed-9c9c-df5d12e729c7.html

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

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

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

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

Yea but you're comparing apples and oranges.

ClaytonB

05-11-2023, 09:33 AM

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

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

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

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

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

TheTexan

05-11-2023, 09:34 AM

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

These things?

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/wdrb.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/1/e0/1e04b206-ef55-11ed-bbfb-f746d0d89471/645bcf54e55e8.image.png?resize=750%2C500

He's pretty obviously joking.

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

ClaytonB

05-11-2023, 09:47 AM

These things?

He's pretty obviously joking.

Bingo.

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

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

TheTexan

05-11-2023, 09:56 AM

TheTexan

05-11-2023, 10:04 AM

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

jmdrake

05-11-2023, 10:14 AM

These things?

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/wdrb.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/1/e0/1e04b206-ef55-11ed-bbfb-f746d0d89471/645bcf54e55e8.image.png?resize=750%2C500

He's pretty obviously joking.

Not a funny joke.

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

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

jmdrake

05-11-2023, 10:17 AM

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

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

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

TheTexan

05-11-2023, 10:21 AM

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

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

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

TheTexan

05-11-2023, 10:24 AM

Not a funny joke.

Whether it's funny or not is not relevant.

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

What was the probable cause in this case?

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

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

jmdrake

05-11-2023, 10:26 AM

Yea but you're comparing apples and oranges.

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

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

jmdrake

05-11-2023, 10:28 AM

Whether it's funny or not is not relevant.

Yeah it is.

What was the probable cause in this case?

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

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

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

jmdrake

05-11-2023, 10:30 AM

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

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

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

TheTexan

05-11-2023, 10:33 AM

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

So the prosecution had:

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

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

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

tod evans

05-11-2023, 10:35 AM

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

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

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

TheTexan

05-11-2023, 10:36 AM

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

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

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

jmdrake

05-11-2023, 10:44 AM

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

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

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

TheTexan

05-11-2023, 10:45 AM

Yeah it is.

Well in that case, the jokes were funny.

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

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

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

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

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

TheTexan

05-11-2023, 10:47 AM

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

A single photo is worthless though don't you get that?

Literally has zero worth to prove anything, except for the fact that he was indeed carrying a rifle.

jmdrake

05-11-2023, 10:48 AM

So the prosecution had:

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

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

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

Please give your source for your claim that the initial police report was inadmissible. I'm pretty sure you're wrong on that. It wasn't admitted before the grand jury but it was admitted before the petite jury. Same thing for everything else you said was "inadmissible."

As for "private" jokes being admitted to show motive for murder, I give you Susan Smith. (The white woman that killed her own kids and blamed an unidentified black man and she killed her kids because she wanted to run off with a new lover.)

https://apnews.com/article/89ccfaadabf960be2ce94fe0b0e6cecd

jmdrake

05-11-2023, 10:49 AM

A single photo is worthless though don't you get that?

Says you.

Literally has zero worth to prove anything, except for the fact that he was indeed carrying a rifle.

Shows where the rifle was pointing when he was talking to Perry.

TheTexan

05-11-2023, 10:53 AM

Please give your source for your claim that the initial police report was inadmissible. I'm pretty sure you're wrong on that. It wasn't admitted before the grand jury but it was admitted before the petite jury. Same thing for everything else you said was "inadmissible."

As for "private" jokes being admitted to show motive for murder, I give you Susan Smith. (The white woman that killed her own kids and blamed an unidentified black man and she killed her kids because she wanted to run off with a new lover.)

https://apnews.com/article/89ccfaadabf960be2ce94fe0b0e6cecd

The article below says the "inadmissible" things were excluded from trial.

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/local/2023/04/11/daniel-perry-austin-shooting-request-new-trial-garrett-foster-murder/70104891007/

jmdrake

05-11-2023, 10:53 AM

Well in that case, the jokes were funny.

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

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

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

:rolleyes:

Uhh...nope. I seriously doubt if I looked through all of your private emails I would find you saying you liked wearing women's underwear. Then again...

Seriously, that's been admissible evidence since before America became a country. Don't be stupid and write letters, emails or texts saying "I'd love to kill so and so." Just don't.

TheTexan

05-11-2023, 10:55 AM

As for "private" jokes being admitted to show motive for murder, I give you Susan Smith. (The white woman that killed her own kids and blamed an unidentified black man and she killed her kids because she wanted to run off with a new lover.)

https://apnews.com/article/89ccfaadabf960be2ce94fe0b0e6cecd

I admittedly skimmed through that link pretty quickly, but I don't see any jokes in there about killing her kids?

TheTexan

05-11-2023, 10:58 AM

:rolleyes:

Uhh...nope. I seriously doubt if I looked through all of your private emails I would find you saying you liked wearing women's underwear. Then again...

Seriously, that's been admissible evidence since before America became a country. Don't be stupid and write letters, emails or texts saying "I'd love to kill so and so." Just don't.

You're telling me, the if one of the founders of this country was facing a murder charge, they would:

1) Raid his home and collect all relevant correspondence
2) Raid his business and collect all relevant correspondence
3) Raid his acquaintances homes and collect all relevant correspondence

??

Anti Federalist

05-11-2023, 11:05 AM

So. I want to make sure I understand. If one of the radicals like from the all black "Not f'ing around militia" showed up to an Oath Keeper's protest, killed someone doing exactly what you described, and happened to be in a red county with a conservative DA and got convicted, a pardon would be justified because that might be a politically motivated prosecution?

If it can be shown that the DA manipulated both evidence and witnesses, yes, I would be in favor of a pardon.

And I can recall a case from many years ago that was very similar to that, and I was in favor of a pardon. Had to do with death that occurred during the Battle of Seattle back in the 90s.

Edit: As for Kyle only being able to carry a rifle, I understand that law, but that's pretty stupid. Under those circumstances he should have been kept on the roof.

Well that's a tactical error, not a legal issue.

TheTexan

05-11-2023, 11:05 AM

Uhh...nope. I seriously doubt if I looked through all of your private emails I would find you saying you liked wearing women's underwear. Then again...

Honestly, I probably have joked about that before. And if wearing women's underwear was a crime (which I don't do, I swear!), that joke could be used as evidence to convict me.

Which is why it should matter how they got that evidence.

If my buddy told the prosecution, "on March 7, Texan told me he liked wearing women's underwear and I can prove it", then sure - get a subpoena for the correspondence on that day.

But if the prosecution is like, "give me all text messages for the past 5 years", and does a search for "women's underwear", and finds my joke.... the evidence is exactly the same, but the significance of the evidence is very much quite different

TheTexan

05-11-2023, 11:11 AM

Seriously, that's been admissible evidence since before America became a country. Don't be stupid and write letters, emails or texts saying "I'd love to kill so and so." Just don't.

In Texas I can confirm it is a cultural pastime to make such jokes.

Especially as it pertains to shooting trespassers.

ClaytonB

05-11-2023, 11:22 AM

Sorry, this nonsense has to be answered...

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

Automatic probable cause for what? The 4th Amendment means that prosecutors need to give specificity in what they are searching for. The fact that they regularly get away with flagrantly ignoring the 4A doesn't make the 4A go away, or stop existing.

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

Perry's sense of humor may be in ever so poor taste, his views on the 2A may be ever so wrong, but short of him messaging to one of his friends, "I'm going to shoot one of these protestors tonight", on the night of the shooting, there is practically no reasonable basis for admitting those messages into evidence. The judge here has exhibited blatant bias, as Texan has noted. I'd prefer to see this case appealed and thrown out on appeal, rather than a pardon. The conviction itself should be overturned and the charges expunged from Perry's record. This is a politically-motivated crucifixion at law, plain-and-simple.

ClaytonB

05-11-2023, 11:25 AM

Photographic evidence contradicted Daniel Perry's claim that the rifle was pointed at him.

False. A photograph can only prove what did happen, it cannot prove what did not happen. This is truly elementary logic... do you think everyone else on this forum is stupid?

... he decided not to testify.

Absolutely the correct choice in this case.

jmdrake

05-11-2023, 11:29 AM

I admittedly skimmed through that link pretty quickly, but I don't see any jokes in there about killing her kids?

You stated that private conversations weren't admissible. In this case it's even weaker then her joking about killing her kids. She just talked about running off with her lover. From there a motive was inferred that the reason she killed her kids was so they wouldn't get in the way of her new life.

jmdrake

05-11-2023, 11:30 AM

Something else I didn't bother reading.

Have a nice day!

ClaytonB

05-11-2023, 11:30 AM

Says you.

Shows where the rifle was pointing when he was talking to Perry.

The question of fact in the self-defense claim is whether Foster raised or attempted to raise his rifle. A photograph can only establish the position of the rifle at a point in time. For the prosecution to prove Perry lied, they would have to show that the rifle was never raised which, based on the available evidence, cannot be proved.

Also, the rifle is occluded in that photograph, so there are a range of possible positions it could be in, including partially raised.

TheTexan

05-11-2023, 11:31 AM

You stated that private conversations weren't admissible. In this case it's even weaker then her joking about killing her kids. She just talked about running off with her lover. From there a motive was inferred that the reason she killed her kids was so they wouldn't get in the way of her new life.

I know nothing about that case but I genuinely hope that those letters didn't have a deciding role in her conviction.

TheTexan

05-11-2023, 11:33 AM

The question of fact in the self-defense claim is whether Foster raised or attempted to raise his rifle. A photograph can only establish the position of the rifle at a point in time. For the prosecution to prove Perry lied, they would have to show that the rifle was never raised which, based on the available evidence, cannot be proved.

Also, the rifle is occluded in that photograph, so there are a range of possible positions it could be in, including partially raised.

Correct and well said. (I thought jmdrake was supposed to be the lawyer here?)

jmdrake

05-11-2023, 11:35 AM

Honestly, I probably have joked about that before. And if wearing women's underwear was a crime (which I don't do, I swear!), that joke could be used as evidence to convict me.

Which is why it should matter how they got that evidence.

If my buddy told the prosecution, "on March 7, Texan told me he liked wearing women's underwear and I can prove it", then sure - get a subpoena for the correspondence on that day.

But if the prosecution is like, "give me all text messages for the past 5 years", and does a search for "women's underwear", and finds my joke.... the evidence is exactly the same, but the significance of the evidence is very much quite different

If a victim identified you as a rapist that was wearing women's underwear and the prosecution executed a warrant for your cell phone and low and behold you were talking about how you loved to wear women's underpants, then yes that would be admissible.

Back to the case at hand. In any murder investigation the cell phone being carried by the person who did the killing as well as the killer contains evidence that could be admissible. Go all the way back to George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. Location data from both phones was used to help Zimmerman in his defense. That could have easily gone the other way depending on the circumstances.

TheTexan

05-11-2023, 11:38 AM

If a victim identified you as a rapist that was wearing women's underwear and the prosecution executed a warrant for your cell phone and low and behold you were talking about how you loved to wear women's underpants, then yes that would be admissible.

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

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

Back to the case at hand. In any murder investigation the cell phone being carried by the person who did the killing as well as the killer contains evidence that could be admissible. Go all the way back to George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. Location data from both phones was used to help Zimmerman in his defense. That could have easily gone the other way depending on the circumstances.

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

jmdrake

05-11-2023, 11:39 AM

Correct and well said. (I thought jmdrake was supposed to be the lawyer here?)

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

jmdrake

05-11-2023, 11:43 AM

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

Eyewitness testimony that you committed a rape.

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

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

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

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

ClaytonB

05-11-2023, 11:48 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

TheTexan

05-11-2023, 11:49 AM

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

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

Do they just let anyone become lawyers these days?

jmdrake

05-11-2023, 11:56 AM

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

Do they just let anyone become lawyers these days?

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

TheTexan

05-11-2023, 12:01 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TheTexan

05-11-2023, 12:05 PM

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

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

I would ace that shit so easy FYI

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

Huh?

Are you referring to the link below?

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/local/2023/04/11/daniel-perry-austin-shooting-request-new-trial-garrett-foster-murder/70104891007/

Speak english please what are you trying to say

jmdrake

05-11-2023, 12:12 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re-read the 4th amendment please.

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

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

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

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

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

You are certainly entitled to your wrong opinion.

jmdrake

05-11-2023, 12:16 PM

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

I would ace that $#@! so easy FYI

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

Huh?

Are you referring to the link below?

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/local/2023/04/11/daniel-perry-austin-shooting-request-new-trial-garrett-foster-murder/70104891007/

Speak english please what are you trying to say

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

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

TheTexan

05-11-2023, 12:22 PM

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

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

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

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

It does matter that these papers are now electronic.

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

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

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

TheTexan

05-11-2023, 12:25 PM

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

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

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

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

Entiendo?

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