Greg Abbott Takes First Step in Pardoning Man Convicted of M

[jdege]

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/04/08/greg-abbott-takes-first-step-in-pardoning-man-convicted-of-murder-for-shooting-blm-protester-in-self-defense-n728437
Greg Abbott Takes First Step in Pardoning Man Convicted of Murder for Shooting BLM Protester in Self-Defense

On Friday, one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in recent memory occurred after Daniel Perry, a veteran of the war in Afghanistan, was convicted of murder. He was charged by George Soros-backed prosecutor in Austin, TX after he shot a Black Lives Matter protester in self-defense.

In July 2020, amidst a rash of nationwide riots, Perry was working as an Uber driver when he turned down a street filled with BLM protesters. The mob surrounded his car, kicking and punching it. One activist, a man named Garrett Foster, then pointed an AK-47 at Perry. At that point Perry shot five shots, killing Foster.

Perry immediately turned himself in, cooperated with authorities, and explained that he had acted in self-defense, fearing that he was about to be shot. The police investigation agreed with him, but Jose Garza, the DA in question, chose to prosecute the case anyway.

[INOR]

Now go read the statements that he made before driving down there and the texts he sent before instead of just that selective reporting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jackpine Savage]

He was driving on a public street. If someone points a gun at you, you should be able to defend your life.

[TSKNIGHT]

The prosecution withheld evidence from the defense as well as other irregularities. That's a big reason the governor is stepping in and calling for a pardon.
Texas law doesn't grant the governor direct authority of pardon. He has to recommend it to a regulatory board (don't remember the name) and then the board accepts or rejects the recommendation.

[INOR]

He was driving on a public street. If someone points a gun at you, you should be able to defend your life.

Yep. I agree. But a month before this all happened, this *********** also texted and posted on social media about wanting to engage these people, wanting to go down and shoot looters, and maybe needing to go kill some folks and that he’d claim self defense as he ended up claiming. That is why he was charged and that is the sole reason why he was convicted. Solely because of his statements on social media and texts. Which obviously points out what a mental halfwit he is and how he ain’t some hero being persecuted “by a rogue Soros backed prosecutor.” This moron would have been prosecuted anywhere.


The **** righty media won’t tell you as they try to paint him into being a hero:


Two months into those protests, on Sat­ur­day, July 25, 2020, Perry, a sergeant stationed at Fort Hood and working as a rideshare driver in Austin, accelerated his car into a crowd of protesters at the corner of Fourth Street and Congress Avenue. Garrett Foster, a 28-year-old Air Force veteran openly carrying an AK-47 across his chest, approached the car. The driver's side window opened and Perry shot Foster four times in the chest and abdomen. Perry turned himself in to Austin police seconds later, claiming he'd shot in self-defense after Foster raised the barrel of his gun. Austin Police Department officers questioned Perry and let him go. Garza presented the case to a Travis County grand jury shortly after taking office in 2021. The grand jury indicted Perry for murder and assault.

The testimony confirming Perry's anger toward protesters came on the third day of the trial as prosecutors displayed text messages and social media comments showing that he thought about killing them. "I might have to kill a few people on my way to work, they are rioting outside my apartment complex," Perry wrote to a friend in June of 2020. "I might go to Dallas to shoot looters," he wrote on another occasion. Perry also encouraged violence in a variety of social media posts.

In addition, Perry speculated about how he might get away with such a killing – by claiming self-defense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jackpine Savage]

I haven't followed this case that closely. I would agree that Perry isn't a hero, and he is a great example of social media biting people in the ass. But I'm pretty sure that even morons are still entitled to defend their lives.

He was driving on a public street. If someone points a gun at you, you should be able to defend your life.

Yep. I agree. But a month before this all happened, this *********** also texted and posted on social media about wanting to engage these people, wanting to go down and shoot looters, and maybe needing to go kill some folks and that he’d claim self defense as he ended up claiming. That is why he was charged and that is the sole reason why he was convicted. Solely because of his statements on social media and texts. Which obviously points out what a mental halfwit he is and how he ain’t some hero being persecuted “by a rogue Soros backed prosecutor.” This moron would have been prosecuted anywhere.

I think you're talking out of your ass, again. You make these bold statements of fact, but you would have to be a prosecutor, THAT prosecutor, AND a member of that jury to know if they were actually the case . To the best of my recollection you are a local bean counter.

Here are some facts for you.

Perry wasn't charged until a year after the event took place.

The previous District Attorney, also a Democrat, must not have been a reasonable prosecutor?

Jose Garva, the Soros DA, Took office in January. He is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

The lead investigator in the case said in a sworn affidavit that he believed Garza committed criminal conduct by tampering with him as a witness. He also said that witnesses changed their testimony and that a key witness never said initially that she was threatened by Perry's car. You don't hear of police accusing prosecutors of criminal behavior every day.

The **** righty media won’t tell you as they try to paint him into being a hero:

Two months into those protests, on Sat­ur­day, July 25, 2020, Perry, a sergeant stationed at Fort Hood and working as a rideshare driver in Austin, accelerated his car into a crowd of protesters at the corner of Fourth Street and Congress Avenue. Garrett Foster, a 28-year-old Air Force veteran openly carrying an AK-47 across his chest, approached the car. The driver's side window opened and Perry shot Foster four times in the chest and abdomen. Perry turned himself in to Austin police seconds later, claiming he'd shot in self-defense after Foster raised the barrel of his gun. Austin Police Department officers questioned Perry and let him go. Garza presented the case to a Travis County grand jury shortly after taking office in 2021. The grand jury indicted Perry for murder and assault.

The testimony confirming Perry's anger toward protesters came on the third day of the trial as prosecutors displayed text messages and social media comments showing that he thought about killing them. "I might have to kill a few people on my way to work, they are rioting outside my apartment complex," Perry wrote to a friend in June of 2020. "I might go to Dallas to shoot looters," he wrote on another occasion. Perry also encouraged violence in a variety of social media posts.

In addition, Perry speculated about how he might get away with such a killing – by claiming self-defense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You didn't say where you found that fine piece of 'journalism'. There was evidence presented at the trial that showed Perry's car slowing as he approached the crowd. Maybe apply some critical thinking? If he accelerated INTO the crowd there would have been a body count and injuries.

You need to come to the realization if it isn't the '****righty media' then it is the '**** left wing media'. There's no media left in the middle.

There is a poor quality photo that appears to show Foster with the rifle in low ready, not just slung. It's too bad there wasn't better video so we could know one way or another. That is what saved Rittenhouse.

[xd ED]

Now go read the statements that he made before driving down there and the texts he sent before instead of just that selective reporting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So what’s the statute of limitations on free speech vs self defense?
How long must one wait after making a social media post before they can legitimately defend themselves from death or great bodily harm?

[Jackpine Savage]

Three Texas attorneys discuss the Perry case. They don't seem to have the same insight as INOR. They wonder what instructions the judge gave the jury and what the jury was thinking. They don't think he should have been found guilty. Some actual insight into self defense in Texas. Run time is 19:48

[INOR]

Can’t see that link via the app. Will have to search for it

XDed, the answer is that the statute of limitations on moronic statements on social media NEVER expires. It can always be used against you. The point I’m making is that if you make moronic statements on social media about killing folks and you subsequently are involved in a self defense shooting where you kill someone, you can fully expect that the prosecution will find your moronic statements and those statements will be used as evidence against you at trial. It can demonstrate character and intent in these cases. It is used to take away the presumption that you’re an unwilling participant. So the moral of the story is to STFU on social media. That’s really all this is about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jackpine Savage]

Can’t see that link via the app. Will have to search for it

XDed, the answer is that the statute of limitations on moronic statements on social media NEVER expires. It can always be used against you. The point I’m making is that if you make moronic statements on social media about killing folks and you subsequently are involved in a self defense shooting where you kill someone, you can fully expect that the prosecution will find your moronic statements and those statements will be used as evidence against you at trial. It can demonstrate character and intent in these cases. It is used to take away the presumption that you’re an unwilling participant. So the moral of the story is to STFU on social media. That’s really all this is about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry, I'll try to remember to put in direct links. Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rzOeEGNGOE

Some other takeaways. Don't live in left wing ******* that have Soros prosecutors, left wing judges, and left wing juries. The entire Twin City metro comes to mind.

[xd ED]

Can’t see that link via the app. Will have to search for it

XDed, the answer is that the statute of limitations on moronic statements on social media NEVER expires. It can always be used against you. The point I’m making is that if you make moronic statements on social media about killing folks and you subsequently are involved in a self defense shooting where you kill someone, you can fully expect that the prosecution will find your moronic statements and those statements will be used as evidence against you at trial. It can demonstrate character and intent in these cases. It is used to take away the presumption that you’re an unwilling participant. So the moral of the story is to STFU on social media. That’s really all this is about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry, I'll try to remember to put in direct links. Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rzOeEGNGOE

Some other takeaways. Don't live in left wing ******* that have Soros prosecutors, left wing judges, and left wing juries. The entire Twin City metro comes to mind.

What one says, or even does at some previous point in their live may well serve to create presumptions,
but it doesn't alter the facts of the present.

Being stupid and temperamental, in and of itself, is not a crime.
Your reasoning is what gave rise to acceptance of the 'hate crime' phenomena; where something said, or thought overwhelms the gravity of actions,
allowing politically motivated persecutors to pick and choose based on ideology, vs law.

[Jackpine Savage]

Jury Misconduct Shifted Self-Defense Burden in Texas Army Sergeant’s BLM-Protest Murder Trial, Say Attorneys

Defense attorneys in the Daniel Perry murder trial state that jurors were subjected to outside influence during the deliberation that led to the Army sergeant’s eventual conviction for murder last week. Court documents filed this week reveal that a juror allegedly did his own legal research outside of the jury room and then used that research to influence other jurors.

More at link: https://www.breitbart.com/border/2023/04/13/jury-misconduct-shifted-self-defense-burden-in-texas-army-sergeants-blm-protest-murder-trial-say-attorneys/

[Lumpy]

If a jury is only supposed to find facts not interpret the law, what is a jury supposed to do in a case where the facts (A. shot B.) are not in dispute, only whether the established actions constitute the breaking of a law or not?

[jdege]

If a jury is only supposed to find facts not interpret the law, what is a jury supposed to do in a case where the facts (A. shot B.) are not in dispute, only whether the established actions constitute the breaking of a law or not?

The question is whose interpretation of the law should they follow? The guidelines provided by the judge, or what some guy found on the internet.

I've done some research into gun laws myself, and they can be tricky. That you've found a statute doesn't mean that you've found the only relevant statute, or that there aren't applicable judicial precedents.

And if your reading tells you that an individual must prove self defense, you've misread.

The state must prove that at least one of the necessary preconditions for self defense is absent. That said, the defense generally has to provide some evidence of self defense in order to make a claim. Absent that the court will generally forbid acself defense claim. But the burden of proof is always on the state.