Army sergeant who drove car into crowd at BLM demonstration and shot dead protester who was armed with AK-47 is charged with murder: PARDONED!!!

Kevin_NH said:
www.texastribune.org

U.S. Army sergeant found guilty of murder in 2020 shooting of Austin protester Garrett Foster

Daniel Perry, who was driving for Uber, shot 28-year-old Foster during a protest against police brutality blocks away from the state Capitol in July 2020.
www.texastribune.org www.texastribune.org
"Perry faces at least five years in prison, but murder convictions can result in a life sentence in Texas."
Click to expand...
There are two sentencing ranges for murder in Texas.

5-99 years for murder in the first degree; or,
LWOP or death for capital murder (LWOP if the convicted was 18 years or older; life with chance of parole if under 18)
 
An analysis by a lawyer who specializes in self defense law. And no, most of us aren't going to like what he has to say. The short version is that there was no apparent evidence, other than what Perry said, to support his claim of self defense.

Link: Daniel Perry’s Murder Conviction Was Legally Sound

And a reminder, things posted on the internet can and will be used against you in a criminal case.
 
Chantry said:
An analysis by a lawyer who specializes in self defense law. And no, most of us aren't going to like what he has to say. The short version is that there was no apparent evidence, other than what Perry said, to support his claim of self defense.

Link: Daniel Perry’s Murder Conviction Was Legally Sound

And a reminder, things posted on the internet can and will be used against you in a criminal case.
Click to expand...
AntiFa thug raised his AK-47 at his head.

He had 2ms to decide whether or not he wanted to die that way and decided it’s better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

It was a good shoot. The thug FAFO.

While it’s legal in Texas to walk around with an AK-47, the minute you point it at someone’s head you only have a 20% chance of surviving long enough to pull the trigger.

He’ll walk free via Governor pardon as he should.

Maybe he and Kyle can trade stories about taking out AntiFA soldiers.

——————

“Perry's defense team claimed demonstrators encircled and starting pounding on his vehicle and that Foster raised the firearm at Perry, prompting him to open fire with a handgun he legally carried for self-defense.

"When Garrett Foster pointed his AK-47 at Daniel Perry, Daniel had two tenths of a second to defend himself. He chose to live," Doug O’Connell, an attorney for Perry, told Fox News Digital in a statement.

"It may be legal in Texas to carry an assault rifle in downtown Austin. It doesn’t make it a good idea. If you point a firearm at someone, you’re responsible for everything that happens next."
 
Last edited:
safetyfirst2125 said:
AntiFa thug raised his AK-47 at his head.

He had 2ms to decide whether or not he wanted to die that way and decided it’s better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

It was a good shoot. The thug FAFO.

While it’s legal in Texas to walk around with an AK-47, the minute you point it at someone’s head you only have a 20% chance of surviving long enough to pull the trigger.

He’ll walk free via Governor pardon as he should.

Maybe he and Kyle can trade stories about taking out AntiFA soldiers.

——————

“Perry's defense team claimed demonstrators encircled and starting pounding on his vehicle and that Foster raised the firearm at Perry, prompting him to open fire with a handgun he legally carried for self-defense.

"When Garrett Foster pointed his AK-47 at Daniel Perry, Daniel had two tenths of a second to defend himself. He chose to live," Doug O’Connell, an attorney for Perry, told Fox News Digital in a statement.

"It may be legal in Texas to carry an assault rifle in downtown Austin. It doesn’t make it a good idea. If you point a firearm at someone, you’re responsible for everything that happens next."
Click to expand...

There appears to be no video evidence or witnesses that can prove Foster pointed the gun at Perry
 
Chantry said:
There appears to be no video evidence or witnesses that can prove Foster pointed the gun at Perry
Click to expand...
Or video evidence showing he didn’t.

There’s enough evidence for the TX AG and Governor to support a complete pardon.

So, lack of AntiFA-sourced cell phone videos of the justified shoot is irrelevant.
 
Chantry said:
An analysis by a lawyer who specializes in self defense law. And no, most of us aren't going to like what he has to say. The short version is that there was no apparent evidence, other than what Perry said, to support his claim of self defense.

Link: Daniel Perry’s Murder Conviction Was Legally Sound

And a reminder, things posted on the internet can and will be used against you in a criminal case.
Click to expand...

That’s an interesting read. He makes some good points and I know much of what is in that article is not necessarily his personal opinion but rather a devils advocate position.

Most of the points have a seemingly equally valid counterpoint. So while I could make those counter points, it’s not really a disagreement and those very points and counter points are indeed things for the jury to weigh and decide on.

I do have one serious disagreement.

He wrote: “ if the jury concluded that Foster had not, in fact, pointed his rifle at Perry, then it must also conclude that it was Perry who was the initial deadly force aggressor in this confrontation when he shot Foster…”

This is not true. They must conclude he was the initial aggressor so long as the rifle wasn’t pointed at him? That’s hogwash. It’s not a linear, he points rifle then he’s the initial aggressor; he doesn’t point rifle then he’s not the aggressor. That argument would ignore literally everything else that may be happening. Certainly someone can be the initial aggressor without pointing the rifle. I mean, even ignoring the fact that if you wait until someone is pointing a firearm at you before taking action it’s probably too late, if you are stopped in your car and someone carrying a rifle accosts you, and for example shouts “Get him! Beat his ass! You’re gonna die tonight!”, while other people block your path and you have no escape route, he is most certainly the initial aggressor whether he’s pointing the rifle or not.

So the jury could absolute conclude the rifle was never pointed yet he was still justified in shooting. Saying they “must” conclude he was the aggressor if the rifle wasn’t pointed at him, is false.
 
As for some of the other points:

He says the only evidence the guy pointed the rifle is his on statements, which are self serving. That may be true. What’s also is true is that the witness statements saying he didn’t, are likewise self serving. They were apart of the same group and it would be against their own interests to admit to violence.

He makes the point he told dispatch he panicked, and that panicking is by definition irrational, and not fear. While certainly that’s not something he should have said, it could easily just be his way of explaining a fight or flight, in this case, the fight, instinct response. Which would indicate fear. Which could then indicate potentially justified self defense.

He also says “while there are some people around Perry’s vehicle, he’s hardly awash in a sea of protestors”

But what does that really mean? Does one have to be completely surrounded by layers of people shoulder to shoulder on all sides? He was in the street. There were people in the street. He appeared blocked by them. What are his options? Run them over? Does it matter if it’s a hundred people or just a few?


He then poses a Rittenhouse incident analogy. And I get his point, that someone carrying a rifle doesn’t mean they are a deadly threat or the aggressor on its own. But the differences between Kyle and this dead guy are that Kyle clearly retreated until he couldn’t any longer while dead guy approached a vehicle in the street with a bunch of other people who were clearly aggressive. Which actually makes Perry more similar to Rittenhouse in this scenario than the dead rifle guy.

And lastly he makes the point that the three shots fired at him came after he shot rifleman and therefore couldn’t be justification for shooting. While that might be true in a direct literal sense, it’s good circumstantial evidence that they people accosting him were a deadly threat. I mean, was that person charged? After all, he shot at someone fleeing who is no longer a threat, right? You can’t have it both ways.
 
Bonesinium said:
He wrote: “ if the jury concluded that Foster had not, in fact, pointed his rifle at Perry, then it must also conclude that it was Perry who was the initial deadly force aggressor in this confrontation when he shot Foster…”.
Click to expand...
It is actually quite complex, and depends on the totality of the situation.

Suppose protestor with an open carry holstered gun walked by the vehicle and the driver had the gun on his lap, holding it with finger outside the trigger guard. Would the open carrier be justified in shooting because the driver could shoot him if he made first move. Same for the driver with respect to shooting the open carrier. Does the situation change if the open carrier is legally holding an AKoid at low ready? What if one is shouting at the other, possibly using ethnic slurs? What if there are a group of persons banging on the drivers car but not engaging in anything that is clearly a lethal threat?

It is not a simple case at all, an it appears that all witnesses as to the gun position are likely to have a personal preference as to the outcome of the trial rendering their testimony of dubious veracity.

But, above all, it is not obligation of the shooter to prove innocence, but of the prosecution to prove guilt. If it cannot be determined "best guess" is not good enough.
 
Last edited:
Rob Boudrie said:
It is actually quite complex, and depends on the totality of the situation.

Suppose protestor with an open carry holstered gun walked by the vehicle and the driver had the gun on his lap, holding it with finger outside the trigger guard. Would the open carrier be justified in shooting because the driver could shoot him if he made first move. Same for the driver with respect to shooting the open carrier. Does the situation change if the open carrier is legally holding an AKoid at low ready? What if one is shouting at the other, possibly using ethnic slurs? What if there are a group of persons banging on the drivers car but not engaging in anything that is clearly a lethal threat?

It is not a simple case at all, an it appears that all witnesses as to the gun position are likely to have a personal preference as to the outcome of the trial rendering their testimony of dubious veracity.

But, above all, it is not obligation of the shooter to prove innocence, but of the prosecution to prove guilt. It is cannot be determined "best guess" is not good enough.
Click to expand...
I believe the Sarg. And AntiFa is -100 in my book in credibility. Unless there was video evidence showing him NOT pointing the AK at the Uber driver, I'm inclined to believe the Uber driver.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
It is actually quite complex, and depends on the totality of the situation.

Suppose protestor with an open carry holstered gun walked by the vehicle and the driver had the gun on his lap, holding it with finger outside the trigger guard. Would the open carrier be justified in shooting because the driver could shoot him if he made first move. Same for the driver with respect to shooting the open carrier. Does the situation change if the open carrier is legally holding an AKoid at low ready? What if one is shouting at the other, possibly using ethnic slurs? What if there are a group of persons banging on the drivers car but not engaging in anything that is clearly a lethal threat?

It is not a simple case at all, an it appears that all witnesses as to the gun position are likely to have a personal preference as to the outcome of the trial rendering their testimony of dubious veracity.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It’s very complex and not black and white at all.

If I had to speculate, as the rifleman is dead so we will never know, I’d wager he wasn’t planning on shooting Perry, but didn’t have good intentions either. I mean, in the interview he did earlier, he literally said he didn’t think anyone would do anything. He didn’t expect to get shot. He did expect to use his rifle as intimidation and to empower others to do bad things. So while he may not have been personally a deadly threat, I think the group as a whole, was. And being he was the one clearly with the most immediate potential, he was the one Perry targeted.

Sucks for him but that’s the potential when you go armed with a group of people out committing havoc and other crimes.
 
safetyfirst2125 said:
I believe the Sarg. And AntiFa is -100 in my book in credibility. Unless there was video evidence showing him NOT pointing the AK at the Uber driver, I'm inclined to believe the Uber driver.
Click to expand...

As far as credibility goes, I’d give his statements more credibility than the mobs/witnesses by a mile. Now he didn’t testify at trial, so it’s tough to really judge. I’m not so sure the guy did point the rifle at him but I’m also not so sure that Perry didn’t think he did NOR that it even matters given everything else that was happening.
 
Kevin_NH said:
Which is weird, I thought every Uber driver had at least one dashcam mounted?

www.statesman.com

Family of Austin Black Lives Matter protester sues admitted shooter, his employer Uber

Daniel Perry was driving for Uber at the time he shot and killed protester Garrett Foster, who approached him holding a rifle, Perry's attorney said.
www.statesman.com
Click to expand...
Even if Perry had a dash cam that doesn't mean it would have shown what happened, especially since it seems that Foster approached the car
Bonesinium said:
That’s an interesting read. He makes some good points and I know much of what is in that article is not necessarily his personal opinion but rather a devils advocate position.

Most of the points have a seemingly equally valid counterpoint. So while I could make those counter points, it’s not really a disagreement and those very points and counter points are indeed things for the jury to weigh and decide on.

I do have one serious disagreement.

He wrote: “ if the jury concluded that Foster had not, in fact, pointed his rifle at Perry, then it must also conclude that it was Perry who was the initial deadly force aggressor in this confrontation when he shot Foster…”

This is not true. They must conclude he was the initial aggressor so long as the rifle wasn’t pointed at him? That’s hogwash. It’s not a linear, he points rifle then he’s the initial aggressor; he doesn’t point rifle then he’s not the aggressor. That argument would ignore literally everything else that may be happening. Certainly someone can be the initial aggressor without pointing the rifle. I mean, even ignoring the fact that if you wait until someone is pointing a firearm at you before taking action it’s probably too late, if you are stopped in your car and someone carrying a rifle accosts you, and for example shouts “Get him! Beat his ass! You’re gonna die tonight!”, while other people block your path and you have no escape route, he is most certainly the initial aggressor whether he’s pointing the rifle or not.

So the jury could absolute conclude the rifle was never pointed yet he was still justified in shooting. Saying they “must” conclude he was the aggressor if the rifle wasn’t pointed at him, is false.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with the point you made, however based on what is being reported as of now it does not seem there is sufficient evidence to support a self defense claim.

Since none of us was present for the trial or on the jury, we can only go by what's been reported. Even if they are honest (and many are not) 99% of the MSM lack the qualifications to present the facts of the trial accurately. I don't believe Andrew Branca is pushing a political agenda, instead he trying to inform of us of the potential after effects of a shooting where self defense, rightly or wrongly, is claimed.

If the prosecutor broke the rules (or laws) about what he is required to do during a grand jury and what he is required to give to the defense, then he should be criminally charged and disbarred. However my own guess is that the prosecutor was not willing to risk criminal charges for this case and he followed the letter of the law.
 
Chantry said:
An analysis by a lawyer who specializes in self defense law. And no, most of us aren't going to like what he has to say. The short version is that there was no apparent evidence, other than what Perry said, to support his claim of self defense.

Link: Daniel Perry’s Murder Conviction Was Legally Sound

And a reminder, things posted on the internet can and will be used against you in a criminal case.
Click to expand...
He sure as f*** is pointing that rifle.

Jack-Posobiec-Daniel-Perry-photo-292x300.png
 
Chantry said:
I don't disagree with the point you made, however based on what is being reported as of now it does not seem there is sufficient evidence to support a self defense claim.
Click to expand...

Considering the number of innocent drivers who’d been attacked by people at BLM protests nation wide during that time frame, plus the videos and some of the other facts, I think there’s plenty of evidence that supports a self defense claim.

As I asked, what are you supposed to do when an angry violent group of people, several who are armed, block your vehicle in the street? Seriously? What are your options? Shoot? Drive through them? Do nothing and hope they don’t shoot [at] you or rip you out of car and beat you unconscious?

It’s an honest question. Because drivers in similar situations around that time had been shot at. Had been ripped from their car and beaten unconscious. Had their windows smashed. There’s a video of a driver trying to back up and comply with the mob. It didn’t matter.

Now regardless how you got in the situation, it’s beyond clear, the crowd is a threat and you probably don’t have any good options.
 
Chantry said:
An analysis by a lawyer who specializes in self defense law. And no, most of us aren't going to like what he has to say. The short version is that there was no apparent evidence, other than what Perry said, to support his claim of self defense.

Link: Daniel Perry’s Murder Conviction Was Legally Sound

And a reminder, things posted on the internet can and will be used against you in a criminal case.
Click to expand...
I saw the video where dead dude stuck the muzzle of the AK in live guy's face.
Try and twist that a thousand ways , it doesn't change shit.
 

Similar threads

With Republicans like him, who needs Democrats?
Replies
4
Views
329
peterk123
P
Ohio man, 81, is charged with murder for shooting dead female Uber driver who was called by a scammer to pick up parcel outside his home
Replies
11
Views
437
slugworth
slugworth
Cheveron deference is dead!!!
Replies
21
Views
568
40 Creedmoor fan
4
  • Locked
Who is buying at these inflated prices from @La Flama Blanca?!
Replies
24
Views
763
drgrant
drgrant
Cargill is in! ATF ban on bump stocks is shot doen
Replies
11
Views
573
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Back
Top Bottom