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!!!

Agnotology said:
This seems to be the correct take, as that photo does not show the gun pointed at Daniel Perry.



When I look at that photo, I see what looks to be a wood buttstock really high and on the crook of his elbow, in the 10 o'clock position of circle. He was carrying a full sized AK. Which means I should see front stock/barrel/gasblock somewhere in the 4 o'clock position of his rifle. But I don't. And that brown I see also cannot be his AK, because he had a side-folding black triangle stock. The more I look at that photo, the less it looks like he was pointing it at him.

Seeing the original, here (click photo and click the photo a second time once twitter's page opens)
View: https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1644518046784995331/photo/1
, without the tweet compression clearly shows a side-folding stock in the 11 o'clock position, and the barrel pointing squarely at the ground. But that is only for that one frame. I want the video that freeze-frame is taken from.
If Jack Posobiec's goal with that photo is to prove a gun was pointed at Daniel Perry, he fell completely short.
Click to expand...

The video I recall seeing was taken from the front drivers side angle .
Maybe 30 feet from the front corner.
You could see the guy raise the rifle and then see the muzzle flashes and hear the shots from inside the car.
 
Dadstoys said:
The video I recall seeing was taken from the front drivers side angle .
Maybe 30 feet from the front corner.
You could see the guy raise the rifle and then see the muzzle flashes and hear the shots from inside the car.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen, nor can I find it. Would love to though. However, that wouldn't remove those... really really bad optics social media posts leading up the encounter.
 
Chantry said:
The pro-gun criminal defense who followed the trial closely disagrees and apparently the jury did too.
Click to expand...
FtJ-4w0XwAIpewn

Look again
 
Dadstoys said:
The video I recall seeing was taken from the front drivers side angle .
Maybe 30 feet from the front corner.
You could see the guy raise the rifle and then see the muzzle flashes and hear the shots from inside the car.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is, that's pretty much my recollection too. But I just again looked, and back when this happened, the same video and stills shot we have in this thread was posted and the same discussions about the direction of the gun, whether it was pointed or not, took place. Absolutely nothing like what we seemed to recall. And it definitely would have been posted and discussed.

On the other hand, just 2 days after this shooting, this took place in Oregon:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVdtZ1Ehc_k
 
Bonesinium said:
The funny thing is, that's pretty much my recollection too. But I just again looked, and back when this happened, the same video and stills shot we have in this thread was posted and the same discussions about the direction of the gun, whether it was pointed or not, took place. Absolutely nothing like what we seemed to recall. And it definitely would have been posted and discussed.

On the other hand, just 2 days after this shooting, this took place in Oregon:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVdtZ1Ehc_k
Click to expand...


I never understood why people believe their right to protest, which they absolutely have, is in any way shape or form a valid reason to deprive others of their rights.

Glad neither of them made the stupid decision to pull the trigger. Nothing in that road was worth dying over.
 
Chevy 2 65 said:
FtJ-4w0XwAIpewn

Look again
Click to expand...

See my post in 88. So we are seeing him angled towards us, in a shooting stance, but you can clearly see the stock of the AK alongside his neck and head, pointing down. Right where you would expect to see the barrel and handguard, it is clearly visible in front of the the girl's shoulder and chin in the foreground with the spagetti strap top, in line with the stock. If it was shouldered, we would see the barrel and foregrip in front of red mask guy's arm who is in the background. We do not. That picture has the firearm clearly pointed at the ground.
 
Agnotology said:
See my post in 88. So we are seeing him angled towards us, in a shooting stance, but you can clearly see the stock of the AK alongside his head, pointing down. Right where you would expect to see the barrel and handguard, it is clearly visible in front of the the girl's shoulder and chin in the foreground with the spagetti strap top, in line with the stock. If it was shouldered, we would see the barrel and foregrip in front of red mask guy's arm who is in the background. We do not. That picture has the firearm clearly pointed at the ground.
Click to expand...
Yes, on the rise. Do you wait? [thinking]
 
The rifle in the still shot is clearly pointed down. But that's a still shot. It could have already been pointed and is being lowered. It could be coming up. We don't know. And I'm not sure it matters. As I said earlier, if you wait until someone is already pointing a gun at you, it might be too late.
 
Chevy 2 65 said:
Yes, on the rise. Do you wait? [thinking]
Click to expand...
..... you can detect motion from a still frame of grainy footage.....? If the rifle was to be shouldered, it would have to be moved down (bottom of stock is above shoulder) and the barrel brought up. You seem to have definitively seen this, so please link so the rest of us can agree with you.


Do I wait? In an open carry state? Absolutely. This happened in Texas. People open carry, literally, all the time, including in protests. You don't just shoot someone for holding a slung firearm in a position below low ready, and if you do, you go to prison.
 
Last edited:
Agnotology said:
..... you can detect motion from a still frame of grainy footage.....? If the rifle was to be shouldered, it would have to be moved down (bottom of stock is above shoulder) and the barrel brought up. You seem to have definitively seen this, so please link so the rest of us can agree with you.


Do I wait? In an open carry state? Absolutely. This happened in Texas. People open carry, literally, all the time, including in protests. You don't just shoot someone for holding a slung firearm in a position below low ready.
Click to expand...
Look at the angle of the stock.
 
Chevy 2 65 said:
Look at the angle of the stock.
Click to expand...
I am? Here, let me outline it for you.
Edit: See second photo. You can see his left arm outlined in black. It is most likely not even touching the rifle in that frame. And if it was shouldered, you would see the handguard and barrel in front of red mask guy's arm in the back ground. I apologize in advance for my shitty MsPaint shaky hands artwork.
 

Attachments

  • garret shooting.png
    garret shooting.png
    279.3 KB · Views: 35
  • garret shooting 2.png
    garret shooting 2.png
    278.2 KB · Views: 31
Last edited:
Agnotology said:
I am? Here, let me outline it for you.
Edit: See second photo. You can see his left arm outlined in black. It is most likely not even touching the rifle in that frame. And if it was shouldered, you would see the handguard and barrel in front of red mask guy's arm in the back ground. I apologize in advance for my shitty MsPaint shaky hands artwork
Click to expand...
Your first drawing is way off. The second is the one where you need to decide. I am done. He pointed the rifle at the man in the car.

He was wearing a black face mask. Your first drawing is way off
 
Chevy 2 65 said:
Your first drawing is way off. The second is the one where you need to decide. I am done. He pointed the rifle at the man in the car.

He was wearing a black face mask. Your first drawing is way off
Click to expand...
Perry, who was on trial, said that it was never pointed at him.

Quickly, a write up by a defense attorney in TX who is openly pro2A and specializes in hard civil rights cases:
defendingpeople.substack.com

The Perry Trial

I explain self-defense, again.
defendingpeople.substack.com defendingpeople.substack.com
 
Chevy 2 65 said:
FtJ-4w0XwAIpewn

Look again
Click to expand...
What I see is an aggressive posture, but the rifle held in a ready position - not shouldered and not pointed at Perry. Was Perry reasonable to believe that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, based on the information available to him at the moment he fired his shots? I think he absolutely was. Would I have shot Foster if he approached me in such a manner? 10 times out of 10 I would.
 
eboos said:
What I see is an aggressive posture, but the rifle held in a ready position - not shouldered and not pointed at Perry. Was Perry reasonable to believe that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, based on the information available to him at the moment he fired his shots? I think he absolutely was. Would I have shot Foster if he approached me in such a manner? 10 times out of 10 I would.
Click to expand...
Agree. What is the difference between low ready and in your face? Some small fraction of a second... surrounded by protesters with no where to go... This scenario should be a good shoot even without the rifle. Reginald Denny didn't get shot.
 
eboos said:
What I see is an aggressive posture, but the rifle held in a ready position - not shouldered and not pointed at Perry. Was Perry reasonable to believe that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, based on the information available to him at the moment he fired his shots? I think he absolutely was. Would I have shot Foster if he approached me in such a manner? 10 times out of 10 I would.
Click to expand...
Based on the review from Mark Bennett, the question at issue isn't whether he'd be justified in that moment. It seems to be that (under TX law) he could be argued to have created the situation through his earlier behavior. This (in my lay-understanding) removes the "innocence" leg of his defense.
 
Mesatchornug said:
Based on the review from Mark Bennett, the question at issue isn't whether he'd be justified in that moment. It seems to be that (under TX law) he could be argued to have created the situation through his earlier behavior. This (in my lay-understanding) removes the "innocence" leg of his defense.
Click to expand...
I hadn't read that until now, and I agree. It is certainly a shitshow that I would have wanted no part in. My prior conclusion was based solely on the knowledge of Perry having been (seemingly) aggressively approached by Foster with a rifle at the ready and not any of Perry's prior statements or conduct.
 
Dadstoys said:
I understand .
The evidence was with held at the criminal trial.
Click to expand...
Did you read a different article than the rest of us?

Fox said:
The motion details why a new trial is necessary by claiming key evidence was kept from the jury which shows Foster and other protesters as the "first aggressor." Several photos were included in the motion. The defense claims those photos were from a month before the incident...
Click to expand...

So what was withheld wasn't photos from this incident, but photos of Foster using his girlfriend's wheelchair to stop traffic -- a month earlier.
 
Army Sgt CONVICTED of killing BLM protester amid George Floyd unrest

Army Sgt CONVICTED of killing BLM protester amid George Floyd unrest

The prosecutor used his social media posts to convince a jury his claim of self defense was invalid:

On Friday, a jury found Perry guilty of murder, but not guilty of aggravated assault.

Perry's defense attorneys, in their closing arguments, insisted that he had no choice but to shoot Foster five times as he approached Perry's car with an AK-47 rifle.

Prosecutors said Perry had plenty of choices, including driving away before he fired his revolver.

Guillermo Gonzalez, prosecuting, said Perry's posts on social media showed he was vehemently opposed to protesters.

Perry also said that in Texas you could get away with shooting them.
Click to expand...

I've read many posts here on NES with the exact same type of comments. Be careful as someday it may come back to bite you in the butt.
 
I'll worry about that after the fact and won't be silenced by fear.
As for the Sargeant, it's looking like he put himself in that position intentionally.
 
Rockrivr1 said:
Army Sgt CONVICTED of killing BLM protester amid George Floyd unrest

Army Sgt CONVICTED of killing BLM protester amid George Floyd unrest

The prosecutor used his social media posts to convince a jury his claim of self defense was invalid:



I've read many posts here on NES with the exact same type of comments. Be careful as someday it may come back to bite you in the butt.
Click to expand...
He hates protesters.

Intentionally drove close to crowd.

There goes the "Innocence" and "Avoidance" parts of the 5 key factors that are ALL needed for a claim of self defense.

No wonder he got convicted.
 

Similar threads

With Republicans like him, who needs Democrats?
Replies
4
Views
324
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
  • Locked
Who is buying at these inflated prices from @La Flama Blanca?!
Replies
24
Views
761
drgrant
drgrant
Cargill is in! ATF ban on bump stocks is shot doen
Replies
11
Views
559
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Newport Beach carnage as homeowner in $5million mansion shoots intruder who broke in with an accomplice at 4am while his family was sleeping
Replies
12
Views
687
TJ4
T
Back
Top Bottom