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

[Mac-7]

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.

A Black LIES Matter wacko with an ak47 threatened Perry and was shot and killed by Perry in self defense

Gov Abbott corrected a wrongful verdict

 

[SavannahMann]

A Black LIES Matter wacko with an ak47 threatened Perry and was shot and killed by Perry in self defense

Gov Abbott corrected a wrongful verdict

The problem is that the evidence for that sequence of events is lacking. This was a political pardon. Done to placate the radical right.

The Governor said he would pardon Perry before the trial. Before the evidence was known. Before he could know anything about the case.

Now how could it be a wrongful verdict if the promise of a pardon was made before the trial?

 

[Mac-7]

The problem is that the evidence for that sequence of events is lacking. This was a political pardon. Done to placate the radical right.

The Governor said he would pardon Perry before the trial. Before the evidence was known. Before he could know anything about the case.

Now how could it be a wrongful verdict if the promise of a pardon was made before the trial?

The evidence is clear

A mob of radical leftwingers was threatening a motorist

And one of the crazies was carrying an AK47

 

[SavannahMann]

The evidence is clear

A mob of radical leftwingers was threatening a motorist

And one of the crazies was carrying an AK47

A motorist who ran a red light to get to the radical left wingers. Got it.

 

[Mac-7]

A motorist who ran a red light to get to the radical left wingers. Got it.

They were blocking the public street and threatening the motorist

 

[TNHarley]

IDK anything about this case but the fact that the entire board of parolees agreed with this says something.

 

[forkup]

IDK anything about this case but the fact that the entire board of parolees agreed with this says something.

Oh. An entire board of handpicked people. All handpicked by the same governor who publicly stated he wanted Perry pardoned says something. While an entire jury of people picked at random said he was guilty means nothing?

 

[forkup]

IDK anything about this case but the fact that the entire board of parolees agreed with this says something.

As for the facts of the case.

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

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.

 

[SavannahMann]

They were blocking the public street and threatening the motorist

And that’s why he ran a red light to get to them?

 

[Mac-7]

And that’s why he ran a red light to get to them?

That was a bad decision on his part

But the rioters did attack his car on a public street and one of them was wielding a firearm

 

[SavannahMann]

That was a bad decision on his part

But the rioters did attack his car on a public street and one of them was wielding a firearm

And according to witnesses he never raised that firearm he was openly carrying.

One of the premises of our culture regarding self defense is you don’t get to claim it if you start the fight or whatever. Also you don’t get to claim self defense in the commission of a crime. It is why robbers who shoot the clerk are prohibited from claiming self defense.

This moron charged the crowd. That was dumb. He ran a red light to do it. Combined I’d call that assault with a deadly weapon. In Georgia, that would be the charge facing you.

He was bumping people with his car. Trying to get them riled up and give him an excuse.

The problem is that Perry wasn’t as smart as he thought he was. It didn’t work. He was charged with a crime and convicted. Not in spite of the evidence, but because of it.

The Governor announced he would pardon before the trial was underway. That means the Governor made up his mind, like many did, before the evidence was in.

That makes the pardon political. And while Perry is now free from the penalties of his actions, he is still a convicted murderer, who was forgiven by the Governor.

 

[westwall]

The problem is that the evidence for that sequence of events is lacking. This was a political pardon. Done to placate the radical right.

The Governor said he would pardon Perry before the trial. Before the evidence was known. Before he could know anything about the case.

Now how could it be a wrongful verdict if the promise of a pardon was made before the trial?

No, the evidence was there. The corrupt DA buried it.

The parole board found it.

 

[westwall]

And according to witnesses he never raised that firearm he was openly carrying.

One of the premises of our culture regarding self defense is you don’t get to claim it if you start the fight or whatever. Also you don’t get to claim self defense in the commission of a crime. It is why robbers who shoot the clerk are prohibited from claiming self defense.

This moron charged the crowd. That was dumb. He ran a red light to do it. Combined I’d call that assault with a deadly weapon. In Georgia, that would be the charge facing you.

He was bumping people with his car. Trying to get them riled up and give him an excuse.

The problem is that Perry wasn’t as smart as he thought he was. It didn’t work. He was charged with a crime and convicted. Not in spite of the evidence, but because of it.

The Governor announced he would pardon before the trial was underway. That means the Governor made up his mind, like many did, before the evidence was in.

That makes the pardon political. And while Perry is now free from the penalties of his actions, he is still a convicted murderer, who was forgiven by the Governor.

Oh boy. A black lies matters asshole lied. Who woulda thunk it. The one thing we know for certain....is black lies matters assholes murdered 30 people across the country and did over 2 billion in damages.

That we KNOW.

 

[Mac-7]

And according to witnesses he never raised that firearm he was openly carrying.

One of the premises of our culture regarding self defense is you don’t get to claim it if you start the fight or whatever. Also you don’t get to claim self defense in the commission of a crime. It is why robbers who shoot the clerk are prohibited from claiming self defense.

This moron charged the crowd. That was dumb. He ran a red light to do it. Combined I’d call that assault with a deadly weapon. In Georgia, that would be the charge facing you.

He was bumping people with his car. Trying to get them riled up and give him an excuse.

The problem is that Perry wasn’t as smart as he thought he was. It didn’t work. He was charged with a crime and convicted. Not in spite of the evidence, but because of it.

The Governor announced he would pardon before the trial was underway. That means the Governor made up his mind, like many did, before the evidence was in.

That makes the pardon political. And while Perry is now free from the penalties of his actions, he is still a convicted murderer, who was forgiven by the Governor.

You witnesses were all Black LIES Matter crazies

Foster approached the car with an AK47 in his hands

Not on a sling hanging from his shoulder where it could do no harm

Perry had every reason to fear for his life

 

[forkup]

You witnesses were all Black LIES Matter crazies

Foster approached the car with an AK47 in his hands

Not on a sling hanging from his shoulder where it could do no harm

Perry had every reason to fear for his life

Your witness is Perry. That's it, just Perry. While on trial, through his lawyers, and in contradiction of his own previous statements. While some of the statements during the trial could be PROVEN false by the prosecution.

What's more likely? Perry, lying through his teeth during trial, in order to keep his freedom. Because he figured out that his statements during his initial testimony were damning. Or several "Black lies matter crazies" willing to lie under oath and risking charges in order to make up a story to convict Perry?


That's what's so funny about someone like you. You pretend to believe anything, no matter how far-fetched in order to stick to your narrative. While at the same time rejecting all evidence to the contrary, no matter how overwhelming.

 

[Mac-7]

Your witness is Perry. That's it, just Perry. While on trial, through his lawyers, and in contradiction of his own previous statements. While some of the statements during the trial could be PROVEN false by the prosecution.

What's more likely? Perry, lying through his teeth during trial, in order to keep his freedom. Because he figured out that his statements during his initial testimony were damning. Or several "Black lies matter crazies" willing to lie under oath and risking charges in order to make up a story to convict Perry?


That's what's so funny about someone like you. You pretend to believe anything, no matter how far-fetched in order to stick your narrative. While at the same time rejecting all evidence to the contrary, no matter how overwhelming.

There is no question that Perry was surrounded by BLM crazies

and one of them was brandishing an AK47

 

[forkup]

There is no question that Perry was surrounded by BLM crazies and one of the was brandishing an AK47

Not an answer to anything. You're claiming the statements of ALL witnesses to the event are false. Except one. That of Perry, delivered through his lawyers, while being caught in at least one lie in open court already. Can you give anything resembling a reasonable argument for that belief?

As for the rest. If you drive into a group of people, you'll be surrounded by them by definition. It's like saying it's the waters' fault when you get wet while jumping in a pool. And Foster had a clear right to have that gun. And in the condition that gun was according to those testimonies you reject, including Perry's original one and Foster's behavior. It was not a threat.

So, under Texas law Perry had 2 problems. Both of them exclude the self-defense argument.

 

[Mac-7]

Not an answer to anything. You're claiming the statements of ALL witnesses to the event are false. Except one. That of Perry, delivered through his lawyers, while being caught in at least one lie in open court already. Can you give anything resembling a reasonable argument for that belief?

As for the rest. If you drive into a group of people, you'll be surrounded by them by definition. And Foster had a clear right to have that gun. And in the condition that gun was according to those testimonies you reject, including Perry's original one and Foster's behavior. It was not a threat.

So, under Texas law Perry had 2 problems. Both of them exclude the self-defense argument.

And Foster had a clear right to have that gun

I dont think we are going to agree on this

You say Foster had a right to carry the AK

But you are really talking from both sides of your mouth since I suspect you would never give him that right if you didnt have to

Too bad for your argument that Perry has rights too

Such as driving down a public street without being accosted by Black LIES Matter rowdies

 

[forkup]

I dont think we are going to agree on this

You say Foster had a right to carry the AK

But you are really talking from both sides of your mouth since I suspect you would never give him that right if you didnt have to

Too bad for your argument that Perry has rights too

Such as driving down a public street without being accosted by Black LIES Matter rowdies

Still not answering my question. What's your reason to believe Perry in court, and disbelieve EVERYBODY else, including Perry when not in court.

And no, I'm not talking about both sides of my mouth. I'm pretty clear on my feelings on public carrying of any type. My feelings though are completely irrelevant. Since we are talking about the application of existing laws in a state. If my feelings on guns were actual law, this discussion would not be happening.

It's funny though. You, unless I'm mistaken (you haven't really clearly stated it here) support gun rights. Yet you keep on insisting that carrying that gun gives a default right to be considered a threat by someone who sees it. Just like you keep on insisting that the right to drive on a public road, gives you the right to run a red light and purposefully drive into a crowd and then claim self-defense when an armed person tells you to move on.

 

[westwall]

Your witness is Perry. That's it, just Perry. While on trial, through his lawyers, and in contradiction of his own previous statements. While some of the statements during the trial could be PROVEN false by the prosecution.

What's more likely? Perry, lying through his teeth during trial, in order to keep his freedom. Because he figured out that his statements during his initial testimony were damning. Or several "Black lies matter crazies" willing to lie under oath and risking charges in order to make up a story to convict Perry?


That's what's so funny about someone like you. You pretend to believe anything, no matter how far-fetched in order to stick to your narrative. While at the same time rejecting all evidence to the contrary, no matter how overwhelming.

That and the 30+ dead, and the two billion in damage.

You're not too bright, are ya...