https://twitter.com/MoseBuchele/status/1287245155683139584?s=19)

https://streamable.com/tef8mj

I put both videos together, synced on the light changing to green. What a lot of people are calling the 9mm shots from the driver, appear to be fired as the car is driving away. Could be from the car, or at the car. #austinshooting pic.twitter.com/XEGbMVDik8

— Boyd blansett (@BoydBlansett) July 26, 2020

Video of shooting at Austin protest captured live tonight (source: @imhiramg) pic.twitter.com/1y624eoUrN

— Path Defiant (@checkback) July 26, 2020

Assault-weapon-wielding #GarrettFoster who was shot in Austin, last night, explaining why he had an AK-47 to deal with "p---ies" who oppose him. #austinprotests pic.twitter.com/3OaZqHoray

— Antifa Stats (@antifastats) July 26, 2020

If you need further evidence that it's him, here he is pointing guns at cars. pic.twitter.com/eOEExXI3Ng

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) July 26, 2020

Bocephus said:

---

BQ78 said:

---

KLBJ reported this afternoon that the pictures and video of the incident were not allowed, including the videos of Garrett talking about why he brought his gun to the protest, which was as inflammatory as Perry's social media posts.

New to me and quite shocking, two witnesses from earlier protests who confronted Garrett after being blocked on I-35. Both feared for their lives and one pulled a gun on him. So Perry was not the first one to feel so threatened that he pulled his gun. Judge did not let them be called.

---

The video of the actual shooting was not allowed? Wtf?!!

---

Some were allowed. Not all.

This alternate is insane and clearly shows the bias in this trial. God have mercy on anyone going before a travis county jury.

https://apnews.com/article/texas-abbott-pardon-juror-shooting-protester-2e890be13e324b3b9fcbd3ccb7263c6c?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab


" "I just thought it was an egregious overreach of power," Dowell said. "It's undermining due process. It's undermining democracy. I was upset, honestly."

It's been like there for some time - Travis County took down "The Hammer" Republican House Speaker

Total different Justice system in that county

It's interesting perry hasn't been sentenced yet. Reports were Monday or Tuesday, then, it was reported it would be Tuesday morning.

But, nothing.

Yesterday said:

---

This alternate is insane and clearly shows the bias in this trial. God have mercy on anyone going before a travis county jury.

https://apnews.com/article/texas-abbott-pardon-juror-shooting-protester-2e890be13e324b3b9fcbd3ccb7263c6c?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab


" "I just thought it was an egregious overreach of power," Dowell said. "It's undermining due process. It's undermining democracy. I was upset, honestly."

---

Democracy is garbage. I hope this catchphrase loses its power like being called "racist ".

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/local/2023/04/10/daniel-perry-sentencing-set-austin-protester-garrett-foster-murder/70098936007/

His sentencing hearing was mistakenly listed as set for today

Justice has been completely upended by radical left wing indoctrination of the population and Soros backed DA's prosecuting on political grounds in venues where judges and juries are completely biased for the left.

After listening to the alternate juror, she repeated that it was very odd that the lead detective was testifying for the defense. However, she completely disregarded his testimony since he did not testify about Perry's social media posts.

She totally failed to consider that the detective believed that Perry acted in self defense, and that fact alone should have been enough to raise "reasonable doubt".

Just saw on Branca's Instagram that Perry verdict is invalid. Going live at 3 to discuss.

Once people started putting modifiers on justice (social justice, climate justice, racial justice) actual justice became obsolete.

There is a reason lady justice is portrayed as blind, because there are no modifiers allowed on justice. It is either just or it is not just. Modifying justice makes it unjust.

That juror printing off stuff from the internet that countermanded the burden of proof on self defense appears to be one of the issues.

Quote:

---

Rule 606. Competency of Juror as Witness
(a) At the trial.-A member of the jury may not testify as a witness before that jury in the trial of the case in which the juror is sitting. If the juror is called so to testify, the opposing party shall be afforded an opportunity to object out of the presence of the jury.
(b) Inquiry into validity of verdict or indictment.-Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury's deliberations or to the effect of anything upon that or any other juror's mind or emotions as influencing the juror to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning the juror's mental processes in connection therewith, except that a juror may testify on the question whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror. Nor may a juror's affidavit or evidence of any statement by the juror concerning a matter about which the juror would be precluded from testifying be received for these purposes.

---

Also, having the alternates in the same room with the jury during deliberations is also a problem. While the Court of Criminal Appeals has not ruled that the statute saying only the actual jurors can be in the room during deliberations renders a verdict invalid, Perry's attorneys are arguing it should be.

Quote:

---

Art. 36.22. CONVERSING WITH JURY. No person shall be permitted to be with a jury while it is deliberating. No person shall be permitted to converse with a juror about the case on trial except in the presence and by the permission of the court.

---

Seems pretty clear to me.

Perry got hosed.

Anyone know on what basis the judge disallowed prior statements and video that would have been helpful to Perry's case?

captkirk said:

---

Anyone know on what basis the judge disallowed prior statements and video that would have been helpful to Perry's case?

---

Not sure why Foster's prior violent acts would be excluded but if it were just bad acts judge could exclude under 403 or 404 also called character evidence.

Now as to exclusion of Fugitt's full report? Judge could have easily redacted his conclusion that self defense was present as that was a question for the trier of fact. That redaction would have solved that. Don't know why the judge refused to do that simple task.

Also, Perry's defense counsel objected to the judge allowing the alternates to be in the deliberations room. So that potential error was preserved.

It's insane to me to allow Perry's tweets prior to the act while at the same time discarding Fosters videos of saying he brought his AK to shoot people.

Yesterday said:

---

It's insane to me to allow Perry's tweets prior to the act while at the same time discarding Fosters videos of saying he brought his AK to shoot people.

---

Fully agree. Highly relevant as to the events of that night. Where Foster's head was at that night just a few minutes before has a direct nexus as well.

Branca just finished his stream if anyone wants to watch it.

Are we 100 percent sure Foster pointed a gun at Perry?

If we aren't, then Perry is guilty of murder and needs to face justice.

CollegeStationNative said:

---

Are we 100 percent sure Foster pointed a gun at Perry?

If we aren't, then Perry is guilty of murder and needs to face justice.

---

That's not the actual question. Was it reasonable for Perry to perceive the gun held in the low ready position above him, as he was seated in his car, was an imminent threat?

Fellow protesters said (all of them using the same term) Foster was "gesturing" with the gun. Whatever that means. And that Foster was advancing on the car on the driver's side while "gesturing" with the gun.

Perry could have well been wrong but was it unreasonable? That's the test under one of the five elements of self defense. ETA: Four elements in Texas due to stand your ground laws.

But this jury was contaminated by two jurors. One defied the judge's orders and looked up what he said was the Texas Penal Code saying that the burden of proof on self defense was on the defendant. It is not. It is the burden of the state to prove self defense does not apply.

Second juror was the alternate who was in the deliberation room with the jury and participated in deliberations via grunts, snorts, and other non verbal signs.

aggiehawg said:

---

CollegeStationNative said:

---

Are we 100 percent sure Foster pointed a gun at Perry?

If we aren't, then Perry is guilty of murder and needs to face justice.

---

That's not the actual question. Was it reasonable for Perry to perceive the gun held in the low ready position above him, as he was seated in his car, was an imminent threat?

Fellow protesters said (all of them using the same term) Foster was "gesturing" with the gun. Whatever that means. And that Foster was advancing on the car on the driver's side while "gesturing" with the gun.

Perry could have well been wrong but was it unreasonable? That's the test under one of the five elements of self defense.

But this jury was contaminated by two jurors. One defied the judge's orders and looked up what he said was the Texas Penal Code saying that the burden of proof on self defense was on the defendant. It is not. It is the burden of the state to prove self defense does not apply.

Second juror was the alternate who was in the deliberation room with the jury and participated in deliberations via grunts, snorts, and other non verbal signs.

---

Did he point the gun at him? If he didnt, it wasnt reasonable.

Quote:

---

Did he point the gun at him? If he didnt, it wasnt reasonable.

---

You mean at his head? Or just at his body?

CollegeStationNative said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

CollegeStationNative said:

---

Are we 100 percent sure Foster pointed a gun at Perry?

If we aren't, then Perry is guilty of murder and needs to face justice.

---

That's not the actual question. Was it reasonable for Perry to perceive the gun held in the low ready position above him, as he was seated in his car, was an imminent threat?

Fellow protesters said (all of them using the same term) Foster was "gesturing" with the gun. Whatever that means. And that Foster was advancing on the car on the driver's side while "gesturing" with the gun.

Perry could have well been wrong but was it unreasonable? That's the test under one of the five elements of self defense.

But this jury was contaminated by two jurors. One defied the judge's orders and looked up what he said was the Texas Penal Code saying that the burden of proof on self defense was on the defendant. It is not. It is the burden of the state to prove self defense does not apply.

Second juror was the alternate who was in the deliberation room with the jury and participated in deliberations via grunts, snorts, and other non verbal signs.

---

Did he point the gun at him? If he didnt, it wasnt reasonable.

---

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Folks, people like this poster get to serve on juries. Let that sink in.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Did he point the gun at him? If he didnt, it wasnt reasonable.

---

You mean at his head? Or just at his body?

---

Either. If he was sitting at his car, it would have to be at his head or not at all.

Eso si, Que es said:

---

Once people started putting modifiers on justice (social justice, climate justice, racial justice) actual justice became obsolete.

There is a reason lady justice is portrayed as blind, because there are no modifiers allowed on justice. It is either just or it is not just. Modifying justice makes it unjust.

---

We have never in the ~250 year history as a nation had a justice system. We have a legal system.

CollegeStationNative said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Did he point the gun at him? If he didnt, it wasnt reasonable.

---

You mean at his head? Or just at his body?

---

Either. If he was sitting at his car, it would have to be at his head or not at all.

---

What? Are you saying that someone pointing a gun at you in your car only matters if it's at your head? Do you think all cars are bulletproof?

CollegeStationNative said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Did he point the gun at him? If he didnt, it wasnt reasonable.

---

You mean at his head? Or just at his body?

---

Either. If he was sitting at his car, it would have to be at his head or not at all.

---

Ever shot an AK at a car door? From a very close distance (less than 2 feet here)? Those rounds go through doors like butter.

CollegeStationNative said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Did he point the gun at him? If he didnt, it wasnt reasonable.

---

You mean at his head? Or just at his body?

---

Either. If he was sitting at his car, it would have to be at his head or not at all.

---

You have made three incredibly bad posts in a row. Take a break little buddy and let the adults talk.

CollegeStationNative said:

---

Are we 100 percent sure Foster pointed a gun at Perry?

If we aren't, then Perry is guilty of murder and needs to face justice.

---

If you need further evidence that it's him, here he is pointing guns at cars. pic.twitter.com/eOEExXI3Ng

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) July 26, 2020

Prostesters beating on your car and someone approaches your window with an AK-47 and tells you to get out of the car, what would you do?

I cannot understand why someone would want to live in Austin or Travis county. Your life is at risk.

Isn't this argument moot?

It's like saying if someone malicious is standing at your front door pointing a rifle at it while you look through the peephole it isn't a threat….which is asinine.

Getting back to that interview done with Garrett Foster the night he died. He clearly stated he considered people who were not on the protesters' side were "p***ies" and he was carrying his gun in part to exercise his 2A rights but also as a kind of dare to anyone to say anything derogatory about the protesters while around him. That interview was edited, as well. No telling what he said on the raw footage.

From an evidenciary standpoint, that certainly should have been shown to the jury. He expressed his state of mind (Perry was a p**** from his point of view) and he could approach with the AK and dare him to say something. Never occurred to Foster that someone else might be armed.

Further, the first officer on the scene had already heard about Foster walking around with the AK. Police were aware of who he was and that he might be looking to make some trouble.

Foster approached the wrong guy.

Classic FAFO.

Wait, Branca wrote a pretty thorough article on Legal Insurrection stating he thought the verdict was correct (which surprised me and probably quite a few others). I'll have to watch this video.

Yes