SW AG80 said:

---

The legal reason is they show Perry's state of mind. That is, did he have a purely financial reason to pick up a patron downtown or was he looking for a confrontation.

---

I understand what they are trying to do, I just personally find it lacking

Hopefully the jury will too.

That's the crux of the case

Broden pointed out the person Holcomb and Perry were debating ultimately pled to a misdemeanor. Holcomb indicated his understanding is the individual "pled down." #GarrettFoster #DanielPerry #Austin @TheTexanNews

— Hayden Sparks (@HaydenJSparks) March 29, 2023

Holcomb tells Perry, "Aren't you a CDL holder too?...We went through the same training...Shooting after creating an event where you have to shoot, is not a good shoot.”

— Jala Washington (@Jala__WashTV) March 29, 2023

The video posted on page one changes some things IMO.

The protesters were not accosting random cars in that video. There were several cars in that intersection, including one dash cam of a guy who was slowly moving and none of the protestors were trying to surround the car or beat on it or anything as they were moving past. Seems like the crowd was maybe 30-40.

The suspect's car turned right into the crowd and could have easily seen them from where he was. There were people already marching through the intersection. There were not that many of him. He could have sat there for less than 5 minutes and like I said before they weren't negatively interacting with any of the vehicles driving on that road.

Personally I think he accelerated quickly into the turn. I don't know if he was trying to get into an interaction with them or just didn't see anyone, but he absolutely turned right into a group of people that in my opinion he should have seen.

Whether that changes the self-defense analysis is complicated.

Should they have been there?

Did they attack his car? Were they allowed to do that?

Did hit the brakes or mow people down?

Does he shoot without a gun being pointed at him?

Imo opinion, it's a very similar logic to those who said Rittenhouse caused his own situation by showing up to a riot with a gun and therefore he's at fault. I see little difference

The state is showing a text Perry sent that said, “I might go to Dallas to shoot looters.” #GarrettFoster #DanielPerry #Austin @TheTexanNews

— Hayden Sparks (@HaydenJSparks) March 29, 2023

Agthatbuilds said:

---

Should they have been there?

Did they attack his car? Were they allowed to do that?

Does he shoot without a gun being pointed at him?

---

Complicated issue for sure. When you see a crowd of people illegally in the road and you are in a car you still have a duty of care not to drive into them if you can help it. He had to have seen the crowd there before he made the turn. I think that's a problem for him.

If they start attacking you without provocation then it certainly changes the equation.

He clearly turned his car into a group of them. Did he do so intentionally? I don't know. If he did, they have a right to react and Foster has a right to protect people.

There's also the concept of mutual justified self-defense where everyone meets the criteria. It's possible Foster and Perry were both reasonably afraid of death and significant bodily harm and both were in the right to react the way they did.

Quote:

---

Personally I think he accelerated quickly into the turn. I don't know if he was trying to get into an interaction with them or just didn't see anyone, but he absolutely turned right into a group of people that in my opinion he should have seen.

---

My give a dam is busted

The Rittenhouse case was obvious self-defense. A lone guy walking down the street, attacked by a lunatic and did not shoot until lunatic caught up with him after he tried to run, then got chased by mob and didn't shoot anyone who was not directly attacking him. State tried to say provocation by introducing fuzzy video of Rittenhouse supposedly raising a rifle (which was unclear) at someone before lunatic attacked him.

This case is different in that there may be more clear evidence of provocation by driving into the crowd that he had to have seen. The pivotal thing IMO is whether the jury thinks it was intentional or accidental.

I suppose. But they will have to convince the jury he turned into them with malice intent

Agthatbuilds said:

---

I suppose. But they will have to convince the jury he turned into them with malice intent

---

And that's the reason for the social media post evidence. They are establishing mindset. His Facebook interactions are certainly not helpful to his case.

I guess if Sgt perry turned into the crowed and floored it, the dude would have been justified to stop the threat.

But perry turned into the crowed and stopped. He then raised his weapon and perry perceived it as a threat.

True. But unless you can prove he drove to Austin in order to confront a crowd, i don't see how they are relevant.

Lots of people say lots of things to friends and the interent. It doesn't mean they mean it.

Iirc, Rittenhouse also had some provocative social media and comments leading up to his incident.

As that case, none of it does anything to disproved Sgt perry's right to self defense

The state is objecting to a defense question alleging that a violent attack that occurred in Dallas was the same group protesting in Austin on July 25, 2020. #GarrettFoster #DanielPerry #Austin @TheTexanNews

— Hayden Sparks (@HaydenJSparks) March 29, 2023

Not a Bot said:

---

The video posted on page one changes some things IMO.

The protesters were not accosting random cars in that video. There were several cars in that intersection, including one dash cam of a guy who was slowly moving and none of the protestors were trying to surround the car or beat on it or anything as they were moving past. Seems like the crowd was maybe 30-40.

The suspect's car turned right into the crowd and could have easily seen them from where he was. There were people already marching through the intersection. There were not that many of him. He could have sat there for less than 5 minutes and like I said before they weren't negatively interacting with any of the vehicles driving on that road.

Personally I think he accelerated quickly into the turn. I don't know if he was trying to get into an interaction with them or just didn't see anyone, but he absolutely turned right into a group of people that in my opinion he should have seen.

Whether that changes the self-defense analysis is complicated.

---

Is blocking a roadway a crime in Texas? Is carrying a gun whilst your blocking a roadway a crime (ask Lee Merritt about that)? Is pointing your gun at someone a crime in Texas? This should never have seen the inside of a court room. It is as clear cut a case of self defense as you are going to get. You do not have a defense of, "I was scared of being hit by a car" when you surround a car in the middle of the street.

Quote:

---

He clearly turned his car into a group of them. Did he do so intentionally? I don't know. If he did, they have a right to react and Foster has a right to protect people

---

He didn't plow into a crowd of people though. He drove down the street until he got to the crowd and stopped. Then they surrounded the car. The crowd was clearly the aggressor. But this is Austin with a Soros back activist DA.

The crux of this case isn't whether or not blocking a roadway is illegal it is whether he intentionally escalated the situation by driving into them to intentionally generate a confrontation. IF he intentionally created the confrontation then he can't turn around and claim self-defense. I don't think there's enough there to say beyond a reasonable doubt he did so, but the video of him taking the quick turn despite seeing people in the street combined with the social media posts is not a good look.

If he accidentally turns onto the street without seeing them, is surrounded, sees the gun...then yes, it is totally justified.

I don't see how that is relevant to the case. Driving on the road is the expected, normal thing to do. Provocation only comes into play if he did something illegal like assault the shooter.

Bocephus said:

---

Prosecution refuses to call lead homicide detective to the stand. Tells you all you need to know. We need to pass legislation that allows you to sue the DA & county for malicious prosecution

---

I got a lot more than suing them in mind. They need to get the same sentence and serve it in genpop with all the people they convicted

He turned onto a dark street and stopped immediately.

Not a Bot said:

---

The crux of this case isn't whether or not blocking a roadway is illegal it is whether he intentionally escalated the situation by driving into them to intentionally generate a confrontation. IF he intentionally created the confrontation then he can't turn around and claim self-defense. I don't think there's enough there to say beyond a reasonable doubt he did so, but the video of him taking the quick turn despite seeing people in the street combined with the social media posts is not a good look.

If he accidentally turns onto the street without seeing them, is surrounded, sees the gun...then yes, it is totally justified.

---

If they're not breaking the law by being in the road, he never "drives the car into them." You're falling for a BS argument from the prosecutor. The protestors were in the wrong bc they were blocking traffic. The guy who got shot broke multiple laws, the last of which got him killed. You don't get to ignore the law until you get hurt and then claim you're a victim and attempt to use the same laws that you broke to punish someone else for the consequences of your actions.

(2/2):
-We also were shown some of Perry's private Facebook messages—a convo between he and a friend.

Listen below. 👂⏬⏬https://t.co/hiOlreJ6E9 pic.twitter.com/TQSkKHjZnd

— Jala Washington (@Jala__WashTV) March 30, 2023

It's not a question of the protestors "being in the wrong" by being in the road. In this case it is irrelevant. Someone merely being in the wrong by being in the road does not justify driving your car into the crowd or the use of deadly force against them. If the state can convince the jury he intentionally drove the car into the crowd he's toast.

He didn't. They won't. He'll walk. Prosecution can't even get the lead detective to agree. Keep machine-gun posting though praying they put him away for cleansing Texas of a violent leftist though.

These crowds block the road begging for a fight. They want an altercation. Garrett Foster bit off more altercation than he could handle

Not a Bot said:

---

It's not a question of the protestors "being in the wrong" by being in the road. In this case it is irrelevant. Someone merely being in the wrong by being in the road does not justify driving your car into the crowd or the use of deadly force against them. If the state can convince the jury he intentionally drove the car into the crowd he's toast.

---

Yes, it is. When you choose the action, you choose the consequences. Moron boy chose to block the road then chose to point his gun at someone who knew how to defend himself. He chose the action, so he chose the consequence. It is not a hard concept to understand except for leftist idiots who do not think they should ever suffer the consequences of their actions.

Not a Bot said:

---

It's not a question of the protestors "being in the wrong" by being in the road. In this case it is irrelevant. Someone merely being in the wrong by being in the road does not justify driving your car into the crowd or the use of deadly force against them. If the state can convince the jury he intentionally drove the car into the crowd he's toast.

---

You're missing the point. There is no "duty of care" that requires you not to drive down a public street because of some possible altercation, just as there is no duty to avoid all possibly dangerous situations because you carry a gun. Stop being such a mental midget and falling for the prosecution's bull**** argument that protestors can do anything they want, legal or illegal, without repercussions.

Not a Bot said:

---

The video posted on page one changes some things IMO.

The protesters were not accosting random cars in that video. There were several cars in that intersection, including one dash cam of a guy who was slowly moving and none of the protestors were trying to surround the car or beat on it or anything as they were moving past. Seems like the crowd was maybe 30-40.

The suspect's car turned right into the crowd and could have easily seen them from where he was. There were people already marching through the intersection. There were not that many of him. He could have sat there for less than 5 minutes and like I said before they weren't negatively interacting with any of the vehicles driving on that road.

Personally I think he accelerated quickly into the turn. I don't know if he was trying to get into an interaction with them or just didn't see anyone, but he absolutely turned right into a group of people that in my opinion he should have seen.

Whether that changes the self-defense analysis is complicated.

---

Wonder the race of the drivers of the other cars.

Sarge 91 said:

---

Not a Bot said:

---

The video posted on page one changes some things IMO.

The protesters were not accosting random cars in that video. There were several cars in that intersection, including one dash cam of a guy who was slowly moving and none of the protestors were trying to surround the car or beat on it or anything as they were moving past. Seems like the crowd was maybe 30-40.

The suspect's car turned right into the crowd and could have easily seen them from where he was. There were people already marching through the intersection. There were not that many of him. He could have sat there for less than 5 minutes and like I said before they weren't negatively interacting with any of the vehicles driving on that road.

Personally I think he accelerated quickly into the turn. I don't know if he was trying to get into an interaction with them or just didn't see anyone, but he absolutely turned right into a group of people that in my opinion he should have seen.

Whether that changes the self-defense analysis is complicated.

---

Wonder the race of the drivers of the other cars.

---

No need to wonder.

Can they really get a warrant for all your private electronic comms under the "state of mind" umbrella? So email, texts, private messages on social media, all fair game for a warrant? When charged with a crime do they now confiscate all computers and electronic devices at your home?

I guess we really only have the thoughts in our head at this point.

Johnny04 said:

---

Can they really get a warrant for all your private electronic comms under the "state of mind" umbrella? So email, texts, private messages on social media, all fair game for a warrant? When charged with a crime do they now confiscate all computers and electronic devices at your home?

I guess we really only have the thoughts in our head at this point.

---

They absolutely take all of that.

Pinochet said:

---

Not a Bot said:

---

It's not a question of the protestors "being in the wrong" by being in the road. In this case it is irrelevant. Someone merely being in the wrong by being in the road does not justify driving your car into the crowd or the use of deadly force against them. If the state can convince the jury he intentionally drove the car into the crowd he's toast.

---

You're missing the point. There is no "duty of care" that requires you not to drive down a public street because of some possible altercation, just as there is no duty to avoid all possibly dangerous situations because you carry a gun. Stop being such a mental midget and falling for the prosecution's bull**** argument that protestors can do anything they want, legal or illegal, without repercussions.

---

If you can find where I defended the protesters please let me know. I don't think anyone is making the argument they were doing anything lawful by walking down the middle of the street.

Drivers have duty of care to act reasonably as do pedestrians. It's debatable whether someone deliberately turning into a crowd of people is acting reasonably. If he sees them there and drives into them anyway then he's at least partially responsible for the confrontation.

In a self-defense case the mindset of the person using the deadly force is the key factor.

Do I think he had a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm at the time he fired the shots? Sure. I think the only major question the jury is going to have in this case is whether or not he created the confrontation by driving into them. That's the key argument here and that's true whether anyone on this site likes it or not.

"Debatable" = not even close to beyond a reasonable doubt. Clearly not guilty by even your own description

That's what the DA is going for.


I dont think there's anyway one could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt Sgt perry intentionally caused the incident.

And even then, he didn't shoot until a gun was pointed at him.