Gov. Abbott Pardons Sgt. Perry After Killing BLMer with an AK-47

[Mac-7]

I blame Perry FOR WANTING to provoke the protesters. The moment you can claim that the protesters wanted to piss of Perry specifically you would have a point. They DID NOT. While Perry specifically wanted to piss of the people he drove into. I don't care he had a right to drive. I care why he wanted to drive there specifically.

The protesters were already provoted

And they had the broken windows and burning cars to prove it

Perry wanted to legally drive his car on a public street

Which he had a right to do

 

[forkup]

The protesters were already provoted

And they had the broken windows and burning cars to prove it

Perry wanted to legally drive his car on a public street

Which he had a right to do

I'm about done. So I'll give you a last rundown of the facts and the guy you are defending.

On July 25, 2020 Garrett Foster—a retired Air Force veteran—was attending a protest in Austin. Foster was open-carrying a rifle, as is legal under Texas law.

Daniel Perry was driving a car when he encountered this protest. He sped through a red light and accelerated his car into a group of protesters, one of whom was Whitney Mitchell. Mitchell—who was Foster’s fiancé—was in a wheel-chair. (She is a quadruple amputee.)

Foster approached Perry’s vehicle in an attempt to get him to stop ramming pedestrians. His firearm was in a safe position: Safety on, no round in the chamber, and pointed at the ground. Perry shot Foster five times. Foster died.

---

The case had everything Republicans love: A peaceful protest with people exercising their First Amendment rights. A veteran lawfully exercising his Second Amendment right. And before the murder the killer had been searching the internet for young girls and sending sexually explicit texts to a minor.

The only problem was the protest itself: It was a Black Lives Matter protest.

And so Daniel Perry—a groomer who was convicted of murder by a jury of his peers—became a conservative cause célèbre.

Share

---

We should be clear that there is no reasonable legal defense of Perry. He initially claimed that Foster had not pointed his weapon at him. Here was Perry’s initial statement to police: “I believe he was going to aim at me. I didn’t want to give him a chance to aim at me.” Other eyewitnesses confirmed that Foster did not raise his weapon. No witnesses testified that Foster did raise his gun.

At the time of the confrontation, Perry’s car was surrounded by protestors—remember, he had intentionally driven into them. Witnesses testified that Perry attempted to get out of his car, but that Foster, standing by the driver’s door, told him not to get out and motioned for him to move on. Had Perry exited the vehicle, it is reasonable to believe that the confrontation would have escalated. Foster seemed—by all testimony—to have been trying to protect the pedestrians from Perry’s vehicle and also protect Perry from the angry people he had assaulted with his car.

But Perry shot and killed Foster anyway. Why?

---

First off, Perry is a racist. And when I say “racist” I don’t mean in the Archie Bunker sense. This is a guy who hates black people so much that he frequently talked about killing them for sport. The prosecution presented a mountain of evidence on this point and I won’t quote any of it here, but you can read about it if you like.

Second, there is ample evidence that Perry had been working himself up to seeking out a Black Lives Matter protest for the purpose of killing. Radley Balko has the full rundown on this here.

For instance, here is a something Perry wrote in June of 2020: "I might have to kill a few people on my way to work, they are rioting outside my apartment complex."

At trial, prosecutors presented an exchange Perry had with a friend in which he had mused on how to create a situation in which he would be justified to kill:

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 Messenger 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."

And while it doesn’t have any bearing on the case, I’ll mention it again: Perry was also actively pursuing underaged girls.



Congrats.

 

[airplanemechanic]

B. De-Escalation 1. An employee shall allow an individual time and opportunity to submit to verbal commands before force is used.

https://www.arlingtontx.gov/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=18327175

Did this happen in Arlington? No, it happened in Austin. Civilians don't have to follow cop protocol from another city anyway. By force they don't' mean deadly force, they mean non-deadly force.

Nice try.

 

[Mac-7]

I'm about done. So I'll give you a last rundown of the facts and the guy you are defending.

On July 25, 2020 Garrett Foster—a retired Air Force veteran—was attending a protest in Austin. Foster was open-carrying a rifle, as is legal under Texas law.

Daniel Perry was driving a car when he encountered this protest. He sped through a red light and accelerated his car into a group of protesters, one of whom was Whitney Mitchell. Mitchell—who was Foster’s fiancé—was in a wheel-chair. (She is a quadruple amputee.)

Foster approached Perry’s vehicle in an attempt to get him to stop ramming pedestrians. His firearm was in a safe position: Safety on, no round in the chamber, and pointed at the ground. Perry shot Foster five times. Foster died.

---

The case had everything Republicans love: A peaceful protest with people exercising their First Amendment rights. A veteran lawfully exercising his Second Amendment right. And before the murder the killer had been searching the internet for young girls and sending sexually explicit texts to a minor.

The only problem was the protest itself: It was a Black Lives Matter protest.

And so Daniel Perry—a groomer who was convicted of murder by a jury of his peers—became a conservative cause célèbre.

Share

---

We should be clear that there is no reasonable legal defense of Perry. He initially claimed that Foster had not pointed his weapon at him. Here was Perry’s initial statement to police: “I believe he was going to aim at me. I didn’t want to give him a chance to aim at me.” Other eyewitnesses confirmed that Foster did not raise his weapon. No witnesses testified that Foster did raise his gun.

At the time of the confrontation, Perry’s car was surrounded by protestors—remember, he had intentionally driven into them. Witnesses testified that Perry attempted to get out of his car, but that Foster, standing by the driver’s door, told him not to get out and motioned for him to move on. Had Perry exited the vehicle, it is reasonable to believe that the confrontation would have escalated. Foster seemed—by all testimony—to have been trying to protect the pedestrians from Perry’s vehicle and also protect Perry from the angry people he had assaulted with his car.

But Perry shot and killed Foster anyway. Why?

---

First off, Perry is a racist. And when I say “racist” I don’t mean in the Archie Bunker sense. This is a guy who hates black people so much that he frequently talked about killing them for sport. The prosecution presented a mountain of evidence on this point and I won’t quote any of it here, but you can read about it if you like.

Second, there is ample evidence that Perry had been working himself up to seeking out a Black Lives Matter protest for the purpose of killing. Radley Balko has the full rundown on this here.

For instance, here is a something Perry wrote in June of 2020: "I might have to kill a few people on my way to work, they are rioting outside my apartment complex."

At trial, prosecutors presented an exchange Perry had with a friend in which he had mused on how to create a situation in which he would be justified to kill:


And while it doesn’t have any bearing on the case, I’ll mention it again: Perry was also actively pursuing underaged girls.



Congrats.

We are just repeating ourselves

See post 273 and 301

The protesters were breaking the law and causing Perry to fear for his life

If they were behaving responsibly Perry would not have shot one of them

 

[forkup]

We are just repeating ourselves

See post 301

The protesters were breaking the law and causing Perry to fear for his life

If they were behaving responsibly Perry would not have shot one of them

he had intentionally driven into them. Witnesses testified that Perry attempted to get out of his car, but that Foster, standing by the driver’s door, told him not to get out and motioned for him to move on. Had Perry exited the vehicle, it is reasonable to believe that the confrontation would have escalated. Foster seemed—by all testimony—to have been trying to protect the pedestrians from Perry’s vehicle and also protect Perry from the angry people he had assaulted with his car.

THAT IS BEHAVING RESPONSIBLE.

 

[westwall]

My point is that this allows the jury to determine what version of events they believe. The version right after the event, when not having consulted with a lawyer about the applicable law. Or the version he told in court. When being fully apprised of the implications of his statement. There's a reason cops read a person their Miranda rights. He changed his statements from on time to another, the prosecution could prove the statement in court was a lie in at least one respect, so they determined that he lied in the other to.

It has been proven that the DA withheld evidence, and there were legit allegations of jury misconduct.

You are simply full of shit. It wasn't a legit trial.

 

[forkup]

It has been proven that the DA withheld evidence, and there were legit allegations of jury misconduct.

You are simply full of shit. It wasn't a legit trial.

Oh has it? That would be great for you. It's Texas. The court of appeals is almost by definition conservative. When was the appeal filed? Oh right. There was none.

 

[westwall]

Oh has it? That would be great for you. It's Texas. The court of appeals is almost by definition conservative. When was the appeal filed? Oh right. There was none.

Yes, there was. The parole board got to look at ALL of the evidence, that's why they recommended he be Pardoned.

We all understand you want to make it impossible to stop your left wing assholes from disrupting society, we get it.

You assholes want to tear it all down.

Just remember to only do that in your solid blue cities and you shouldn't have a problem.

 

[SavannahMann]

Yes, there was. The parole board got to look at ALL of the evidence, that's why they recommended he be Pardoned.

We all understand you want to make it impossible to stop your left wing assholes from disrupting society, we get it.

You assholes want to tear it all down.

Just remember to only do that in your solid blue cities and you shouldn't have a problem.

The problem I run into, and I suspect others have as well. The problem is that I hear there is evidence. But I can’t seem to find it. I hear there are witnesses that say it was self defense. But I can’t seem to find them. All the witnesses that testified said it wasn’t.

I hear there is video. All I’ve seen is a grainy screenshot that is not supportive of the claim that the victim pointed the rifle.

 

[westwall]

The problem I run into, and I suspect others have as well. The problem is that I hear there is evidence. But I can’t seem to find it. I hear there are witnesses that say it was self defense. But I can’t seem to find them. All the witnesses that testified said it wasn’t.

I hear there is video. All I’ve seen is a grainy screenshot that is not supportive of the claim that the victim pointed the rifle.

Yeah, the DA withheld it. That's why you can't find it. The parole board DID get to see all of it. That's why they recommended the pardon. They didn't just willy nilly pardon the guy.

They actually investigated to make sure he was railroaded. He's been in prison for a year while they did that.

They could have just immediately Pardoned him, but they didn't.

 

[forkup]

Yes, there was. The parole board got to look at ALL of the evidence, that's why they recommended he be Pardoned.

We all understand you want to make it impossible to stop your left wing assholes from disrupting society, we get it.

You assholes want to tear it all down.

Just remember to only do that in your solid blue cities and you shouldn't have a problem.

A parole board is litterally appointed by the governor. They don't have to take any legal argument in consideration. An appeal is something you do to consider a legal objection. In fact, accepting a pardon is ACCEPTING GUILT.

 

[westwall]

A parole board is litterally appointed by the governor. They don't have to take any legal argument in consideration. An appeal is something you do to consider a legal objection. In fact, accepting a pardon is ACCEPTING GUILT.

So what. You had a soros funded DA who withheld evidence. And, no, accepting a pardon does not accepting guilt.

 

[forkup]

So what. You had a soros funded DA who withheld evidence. And, no, accepting a pardon does not accepting guilt.

And Perry has a jury randomly appointed that needs to unanimously decide guilty to convict. In a state that dominates both the appeal and Supreme Court level. And withholding evidence is appealable. THEY DID NOT. Telling me this only exists in your mind. Just like Soros. Honestly. Soros????? Why not simply say Boogie man? It would be just as bogus.

 

[SavannahMann]

Yeah, the DA withheld it. That's why you can't find it. The parole board DID get to see all of it. That's why they recommended the pardon. They didn't just willy nilly pardon the guy.

They actually investigated to make sure he was railroaded. He's been in prison for a year while they did that.

They could have just immediately Pardoned him, but they didn't.

You see, I don’t buy that. The defense could have called these other witnesses. Withholding evidence is grounds for immediate dismissal of all charges. It happened to the Bundy’s you know. But it is a nice claim to make, especially when you have no proof of it.

It is one that is made often. In fact, every time some RW type is charged with a crime. Secret evidence withheld. Witnesses hidden and disallowed. Defense Attorneys are always looking for it. And when they find it they use that to get charges dismissed.

Here is the really funny thing. Before 2020, the RW regularly refused to even consider such a thing when claimed by minorities. Even when there was video evidence, they claimed it was the act of a single bad cop. Not a pattern. Now of course, it is a pattern. It is in every single prosecution of the January 6th insurgents. It is in every single criminal prosecution of Trump. Apparently he has never even jaywalked in his life. All the charges are bogus. Or something.

 

[SavannahMann]

So what. You had a soros funded DA who withheld evidence. And, no, accepting a pardon does not accepting guilt.

It is an admission of guilt.

Burdick v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TheYellowKing]

Good!

It as the right thing to do after a far left prosecutor, in a far left city prosecuted him. Sounds familiar.

​

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) on Thursday issued a pardon for Daniel Perry, an Army sergeant who was convicted of murder for fatally shooting a Black Lives Matter (BLM) protester in 2020.​

​

In April, a jury found Perry guilty of murdering Garrett Foster during a July 2020 protest in Austin, Texas. The jury did not find him guilty of an aggravated assault charge.​

​

Perry was sentenced to 25 years in prison, and Abbott asked the state’s parole board to review the case expeditiously. Perry’s conviction and sentencing have angered conservatives, who say he was acting out of self-defense.​

​

The board, appointed by the governor, announced its unanimous recommendation to pardon Perry, and Abbott’s proclamation followed, The Associated Press reported.​

​

In a statement Thursday, the governor said Texas has one of the strongest “Stand Your Ground” laws of self-defense.​

​

The proclamation grants Perry a full pardon and “restoration of full civil rights of citizenship.” Abbott thanked the review board for its unanimous decision.​

​

...​

Gov. Abbott Pardons Sgt. Perry After Killing BLMer with an AK-47

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) on Thursday issued a pardon for Daniel Perry, an Army sergeant who was convicted of murder for fatally shooting

www.independentsentinel.com

---

---

He should have never spent 1 day in Jail. He had a rifle pointed in his face and a mob surrounding his car

 

[westwall]

It is an admission of guilt.

Burdick v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Oh, boy. One case out of thousands.

No, it isn't a admission of guilt. Pardons are granted when there is clear evidence of prosecutorial misconduct that led to a verdict of guilty where DNA evidence that was withheld is finally admitted into evidence, proving beyond doubt that the prisoner is innocent, you dumb son of a bitch.

 

[SavannahMann]

Oh, boy. One case out of thousands.

No, it isn't a admission of guilt. Pardons are granted when there is clear evidence of prosecutorial misconduct that led to a verdict of guilty where DNA evidence that was withheld is finally admitted into evidence, proving beyond doubt that the prisoner is innocent, you dumb son of a bitch.

Not even close. You see the one case out of thousands was a Supreme Court Precedent setting decision.

The remedy when evidence of prosecutorial misconduct and the rest exists is called an appeal.

 

[Mac-7]

It is an admission of guilt.

Burdick v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You should have read more than just the dictum of that case

Here is the part you missed:

Although the Supreme Court's opinion stated that a pardon carries "an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it,"[1]this was part of the Court's dictum for the case.[3] Whether the acceptance of a pardon constitutes an admission of guilt by the recipient is disputed. In Lorance v. Commandant, USDB(2021) the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "there is no confession and Lorance does not otherwise lose his right to petition for habeas corpus relief for his court-martial conviction and sentence. The case was remanded for further action not inconsistent with the court’s opinion."[4]

 

[SavannahMann]

You should have read more than just the dictum of that case

Here is the part you missed:

Although the Supreme Court's opinion stated that a pardon carries "an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it,"[1]this was part of the Court's dictum for the case.[3] Whether the acceptance of a pardon constitutes an admission of guilt by the recipient is disputed. In Lorance v. Commandant, USDB(2021) the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "there is no confession and Lorance does not otherwise lose his right to petition for habeas corpus relief for his court-martial conviction and sentence. The case was remanded for further action not inconsistent with the court’s opinion."[4]

Oh I read it. Thomas Jefferson called the Pardon the Benign Prerogative. The idea was simple. The President, or in this case Governor, had to make a lot of bad decisions. But to sooth the soul he could forgive and release people without anyone second guessing him.

It is also called clemency. That isn’t the idea that you were wrongfully convicted, which I don’t think happened in this case. But are forgiven.

Daniel Perry is a Murderer, convicted, who has been pardoned, forgiven, for his crime. He is not an innocent man. That requires a court to overturn the conviction. He is a forgiven man.