Well he admitted it wasn't pointed at him.The Fall Guy said:
So bad that you get charged for murder when a gun is pointed at you and you fire in self defense. The FAFO the protestor was killed because if you have a gun and point it at someone there is a chance the other guy will fire back. Common sense gun training .
From the police interview of Daniel Perry, the man convicted of murder whom Gov. Greg Abbott now wants to pardon.
— Mike Hixenbaugh (@Mike_Hixenbaugh) April 8, 2023
"I didn't want to give him a chance to aim at me, ya know?"
In an increasingly armed society, when do you get to shoot gun-carrying people and call it self-defense? pic.twitter.com/ZjfJZYwZsp
210 said:Well he admitted it wasn't pointed at him.The Fall Guy said:
So bad that you get charged for murder when a gun is pointed at you and you fire in self defense. The FAFO the protestor was killed because if you have a gun and point it at someone there is a chance the other guy will fire back. Common sense gun training .
Correct me if I'm wrong as I haven't followed this super closely.
He made social media comments about wanting to kill protestors. Then he drove around a barricade to get near them. Then he shot one when a guy walked towards him? Seems like this dude should be in jail which is what the jury thought as well. Don't understand the rule of law if he just gets pardoned, which Abbot can't even legally do.From the police interview of Daniel Perry, the man convicted of murder whom Gov. Greg Abbott now wants to pardon.
— Mike Hixenbaugh (@Mike_Hixenbaugh) April 8, 2023
"I didn't want to give him a chance to aim at me, ya know?"
In an increasingly armed society, when do you get to shoot gun-carrying people and call it self-defense? pic.twitter.com/ZjfJZYwZsp
Quote:
Don't understand the rule of law if he just gets pardoned, which Abbot can't even legally do.
Yep, I am a gun owner. Don't like the governor trying to overturn verdicts. We have the rule of law or we don't.Ag_EE_88 said:210 said:Well he admitted it wasn't pointed at him.The Fall Guy said:
So bad that you get charged for murder when a gun is pointed at you and you fire in self defense. The FAFO the protestor was killed because if you have a gun and point it at someone there is a chance the other guy will fire back. Common sense gun training .
Correct me if I'm wrong as I haven't followed this super closely.
He made social media comments about wanting to kill protestors. Then he drove around a barricade to get near them. Then he shot one when a guy walked towards him? Seems like this dude should be in jail which is what the jury thought as well. Don't understand the rule of law if he just gets pardoned, which Abbot can't even legally do.From the police interview of Daniel Perry, the man convicted of murder whom Gov. Greg Abbott now wants to pardon.
— Mike Hixenbaugh (@Mike_Hixenbaugh) April 8, 2023
"I didn't want to give him a chance to aim at me, ya know?"
In an increasingly armed society, when do you get to shoot gun-carrying people and call it self-defense? pic.twitter.com/ZjfJZYwZsp
Have you ever fired a gun? Pointed at you and aimed at you are not the same.
Quote:
He made social media comments about wanting to kill protestors. Then he drove around a barricade to get near them. Then he shot one when a guy walked towards him?
Apache said:Quote:
He made social media comments about wanting to kill protestors. Then he drove around a barricade to get near them. Then he shot one when a guy walked towards him?
I haven't followed this closely either.... is this all accurate?
I thought it was an open & shut case of self defense, but this definitely changes that narrative.
This outlines some of his comments if you're interested:Apache said:Quote:
He made social media comments about wanting to kill protestors. Then he drove around a barricade to get near them. Then he shot one when a guy walked towards him?
I haven't followed this closely either.... is this all accurate?
I thought it was an open & shut case of self defense, but this definitely changes that narrative.
KT 90 said:Quote:
Don't understand the rule of law if he just gets pardoned, which Abbot can't even legally do.
The Board of Pardon's and Parole has has to first recommend the pardon, then Abbott can issue a pardon. Abbott can't just issue a pardon on his own. That's my understanding anyway. So Abbott can certainly pardon him legally, it just has to work it's way through the process first.
It'll definitely be interesting to follow. There are pics online of the guy pointing his gun at Perry. Then supposedly the lead detective had additional evidence which Garza refused to provide/consider as evidence in the case, and apparently this would have been beneficial to Perry's case.
Seems like there should be an appeal first to have the case retried? Then go through the whole pardon process if need be. But I definitely don't know the details on all this. I guess in the appeal situation, he'd have to stay in jail throughout that process, vs. going straight to the Board of Pardon's and Parole. Maybe that is like another trail with the evidence presented again. No idea.
NEW: Daniel Perry’s defense team has filed a motion for a new trial, alleging in part that the court, in error, “excluded key evidence that they say shows Garrett Foster and protesters were the “first aggressor,” not Perry.
— Tony Plohetski (@tplohetski) April 11, 2023
That article ignores that the PD's lead investigator said none of the witnesses claiming that Foster did not point the AK at Perry were in a position where they could had seen or known whether he pointed the gun at him. The Grand Jury was denied that information from the lead investigator.210 said:This outlines some of his comments if you're interested:Apache said:Quote:
He made social media comments about wanting to kill protestors. Then he drove around a barricade to get near them. Then he shot one when a guy walked towards him?
I haven't followed this closely either.... is this all accurate?
I thought it was an open & shut case of self defense, but this definitely changes that narrative.
https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/a-look-at-the-social-media-timeline-presented-in-the-daniel-perry-case
Quote:
On the night of July 25, 2020, Perry, an active duty sergeant at nearby Fort Hood, was working as a rideshare driver to make extra money, his attorney Clint Broden previously said.
He carried a handgun in his car for protection, Broden said.
Perry dropped a passenger off near the rally, which he did not know was taking place, Broden added.
Several people then began beating on Perry's car and a man carrying an assault-style rifle approached the car and motioned with the rifle for Perry to lower his window, according to Broden.
"Foster, the individual with the assault rifle, began to raise the AK-47 toward Sgt. Perry. It was only then that Sgt. Perry, who carried a handgun in his car for his own protection, fired on Foster because he believed his life to be in jeopardy," Broden has said.
The prosecution argued Perry initiated the encounter by running a red light to turn into the crowd gathered for the police brutality protest and had previously posted on social media about shooting protesters, according to CNN affiliate KEYE.
Then-Austin Police Chief Brian Manley said officers responded to a 911 call in which the caller stated they had just shot someone who approached their car window and pointed a rifle at them.
One witness to the shooting, James Sasinowski, told CNN at the time that the driver of the car initiated the encounter by accelerating toward the protesters.
"This was intentional. It was aggressive and he accelerated into a crowd of protesters," Sasinowski said. "He could have waited for us to pass or he could have gone slowly. We would have allowed him to go through."
https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin-police-detective-accuses-travis-county-da-of-criminal-behavior-in-case-against-sgt-daniel-perry/210 said:
Can you post some sources for that? Would love to read about it.
Unfortunately it's just conflicting reports between the prosecution and the defense, and the jury didn't buy the defense's argument.Quote:
On the night of July 25, 2020, Perry, an active duty sergeant at nearby Fort Hood, was working as a rideshare driver to make extra money, his attorney Clint Broden previously said.
He carried a handgun in his car for protection, Broden said.
Perry dropped a passenger off near the rally, which he did not know was taking place, Broden added.
Several people then began beating on Perry's car and a man carrying an assault-style rifle approached the car and motioned with the rifle for Perry to lower his window, according to Broden.
"Foster, the individual with the assault rifle, began to raise the AK-47 toward Sgt. Perry. It was only then that Sgt. Perry, who carried a handgun in his car for his own protection, fired on Foster because he believed his life to be in jeopardy," Broden has said.
The prosecution argued Perry initiated the encounter by running a red light to turn into the crowd gathered for the police brutality protest and had previously posted on social media about shooting protesters, according to CNN affiliate KEYE.
Then-Austin Police Chief Brian Manley said officers responded to a 911 call in which the caller stated they had just shot someone who approached their car window and pointed a rifle at them.
One witness to the shooting, James Sasinowski, told CNN at the time that the driver of the car initiated the encounter by accelerating toward the protesters.
"This was intentional. It was aggressive and he accelerated into a crowd of protesters," Sasinowski said. "He could have waited for us to pass or he could have gone slowly. We would have allowed him to go through."
Quote:
A police bodycam video was shown in court Friday of Perry when he spoke to officers right after the shooting.
Perry told the officers in the video that he rolled his window down because he thought "a guy (Foster) was trying to talk to me." He said Foster raised his gun at him.
"I didn't know he was going to aim it at me," Perry said. "I thought he was going to kill me. ... I've never been so scared in my life, and I've been to Afghanistan."
Quote:
"If I were in danger I don't care who is in my way I am pushing them out of my way to escape I will also repeatedly say I am in fear of my life I will defend myself."
On another Facebook post on June 1, 2020, Perry wrote: "now it is my turn to get banned (from Facebook) by comparing the black lives matter movement to a zoo full of monkeys that are freaking out flinging their s--t."
The posts included messages such as "Black Lives Matter is racist to white people...It is official I am racist because I do not agree with people acting like monkeys," Perry wrote.
What bearing do the ones about race have in a case where a white guy shot another white guy? Just meaningless race baiting in this situation. And newsflash, the BLM movement (the people in the streets, not the ones tweeting the hashtag) was violent and racist against white people in the heat of many of those protests. His first statement is exactly the way I feel. If I feel I am in danger in that situation, I am going to run over people to escape if I have to. Not sure what is controversial about that?210 said:
Some more of his social media posts were revealed today, the jury didn't see these.
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/local/2023/04/13/daniel-perry-trial-social-media-racist-anti-protester-comments-gov-abbott-garrett-foster/70113166007/
Some snippets:Quote:
"If I were in danger I don't care who is in my way I am pushing them out of my way to escape I will also repeatedly say I am in fear of my life I will defend myself."
On another Facebook post on June 1, 2020, Perry wrote: "now it is my turn to get banned (from Facebook) by comparing the black lives matter movement to a zoo full of monkeys that are freaking out flinging their s--t."
The posts included messages such as "Black Lives Matter is racist to white people...It is official I am racist because I do not agree with people acting like monkeys," Perry wrote.
Rongagin71 said:
Assuming those quotes are true, so what? It's called free speech.
You might say Perry wasn't very smart, but you also might agree with him 100%.
Either way, politics should not take away his right of self defense.
Quote:
Daniel Perry, convicted of murder, wrote of wanting to kill protesters, Muslims, Black people, new court docs show
I tried to read your Chronicle posting but the newspaper kept interrupting with a popup.210 said:Rongagin71 said:
Assuming those quotes are true, so what? It's called free speech.
You might say Perry wasn't very smart, but you also might agree with him 100%.
Either way, politics should not take away his right of self defense.
And more comes out...
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/daniel-perry-messages-violent-racist-posts-17896036.phpQuote:
Daniel Perry, convicted of murder, wrote of wanting to kill protesters, Muslims, Black people, new court docs show
I don't disagree with you, but it is relevant to this thread. Abbot's pardoning comments were purely political, and it will be interesting to see if he walks them back now.
I am fine with your questions about it. We disagree on whether the video is Perry saying Foster didn't point the gun in his direction. It is a subtle fine point, but you can point a gun in somebody's direction with intent, but not be "aiming at them". That difference is a second or two at most and is consistent with Perry's statements that he drew and shot because he didn't want to give him a chance to "aim" the gun at him. If Perry waited for Foster to actually aim the gun at him before drawing his own weapon, it is likely he would have been shot before he could complete the move. In that case, I think Foster could have made a semi-credible case of self defense as well.210 said:
All fair points, I just don't think we're going to agree on this.
I look at it as:
- Posted numerous comments and messages about wanting to kill protestors
- Witnesses claimed he was the aggressor
- Witnesses claimed Foster did not aim his gun at him
- Perry admitted in the video above that the gun was not pointed at him
- Guy lives in Killeen but was in Austin (could have just been a coincidence)
I look at this and just see a guy that was looking for trouble and found it. If this is self-defense then it seems like anyone can legally shoot someone that is open carrying and claim they were scared for their life.
If he is legally allowed to appeal or get a second trial, I'm all for it. I just don't want Abbot interfering in our judicial process to win points with his base.
