U.S. Army sergeant convicted of murder in protester's shooting death in Texas

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna78782

Wow. These facts are ridiculous. I can’t believe this man was charged in the first place. Absolutely nuts. If you are walking around thee streets with a AK 47 you are assuming the risk. The defendant in this case was right to put him down.

 

If this is the same case I think it is, the guy he 'murdered' literally blocked his car and pointed a rifle at him through the window. If you can't shoot someone who does that, then there's no such thing as self defense. At bare minimum, the 'vitctim' was brandishing his firearm (which is a crime), although really the 'victim' was by any reasonable interpretation threatenning to shoot Perry.

WTF happened to Austin, TX?

(that's rhetorical, I know what happened...)

He needs to get an appeal in another jurisdiction.

 

Soros prosecutor in the San Francisco of the South West. There is no way this guy should have been charged at all

 

This, to me, seems to be a case where one guy would still be alive, and the other guy would not go to prison, if they didn't have guns. Guns, combined with too much testosteron, can make otherwise harmless situations deadly.

 

Okay but should this guy go to jail just because we live in a world with guns?

 

I vaguely remember some coverage of this horrid event. I’m somewhat inclined by my recollection of the coverage to trust that the jury sorted it out correctly in spite of the gun insanity in play.

 

I bet the cop lied out of his ass.

 

Guy should've gotten a medal for stopping a terrorist attack but he got jail time instead. This kind of stuff is going to have to go away or things could go bad for all of us.

 

I'm 100% pro 2A and the problem with gun legislation/restriction is it has to be balanced with the constitution and the 2A right. Both the Rs and the Ds will always go too far one way or the other which is why SCOTUS should have always been balanced and unlimited dark money should always be out of politics/government.

GENERAL COMMENT:
Yes, guns, women, testosterone, alcohol, corrupt intent and STUPIDITY should always be somewhat tempered with COMMON SENSE and measured tolerance, maybe even a measure of respect, for our fellow citizenry. Personally, I would not walk around with a gun visible (it causes unnecessary stress for everyone and attracts all kinds of unsolicited attention, good and bad) nor would I ever walk the street with an AK47 nor any assault rifle as I don't want to again attract any attention or possibly pose a perceived or misperceived threat to LE or some bozo cruising for a bruising. And yeah, with mass shootings being so common place, some cowboy wannabee is going to shoot first and let God sort it out.

 

No. From the two or three stories I’ve seen on this the DA was out of line, the grand jury was out of line, and the jury that convicted him was out of line. Every story I’ve seen points to this being a clear case of self defense.

 

I'm actually unfamiliar with all the particulars of the case and I hope your recollection is correct, seriously.

 

Seems IMO it hinges on if he actually aimed the gun at him. Anyone know if that was confirmed by witnesses?

 

There might be some light at the end of the tunnel.



https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1644778789493243907

 

Sounds like abbot is saying cops can kill anyone they see with a gun. Do Texans not support the 2nd amendment anymore?

 

Dude, you don't wait for the flash!
I'm just glad the good guy did not get glass in his eyes.

 

Thank god for Abbott

 

Do you know what the reported facts of the case are?

 

If it was pointed at him then it’s hard to argue with.

 

It wasn't a cop; it was a soldier (not on duty).

 

If the dumbass with the AK, had been so reckless, as to point his rifle at somebody, then there should be no one to blame but himself, for his death. I wonder why the jury returned a guilty verdict-- did they not believe Perry's story? The article, of course, does not explain that seeming inconsistency of the verdict, with the details, according to Perry's testimony.

 

So you think A Texas Governor giving a pardon to someone wrongfully convicted means cops can kill anyone they see?
Just wow

 

Looks like he will be pardoned but this case absolutely disgusts me. The DA is another one of Soros’s puppet boys. Self defense is not just a right, it’s natural. If someone pointed a gun at me I likewise wouldn’t hesitate if I were armed to save myself. It’s like asking a mountain climber that slipped to not grab for another object to save himself from a fall. It absolutely sickens me to the core that a jury would find him guilty of anything

 

It’s legal to bear, it’s not legal to go pointing your gun at people. I totally agree with your point

 

Looks as if he will pardoned

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gr...eant-convicted-murder-black-lives-matter-riot

 

Well, a few questions. For starters, He was stationed in Fort Hood, soon to be called Fort Cavazos to Austin. Not sure if he had weekend liberty or not, or what business he had in Austin to begin with. The article does not state. Under the Castle Doctrine, you have a right to defend yourself if you do not provoke such an event. Hence, witnesses said he drove aggressively into the crowd. The streets, if it was downtown, are generally one way, alternating each way every other street, with a few streets having two-way access. So, was he going to 6th Street, maybe? Was he going to another counter-protest location? Maybe. But the demonstrators were peaceful, the police investigate, they arrested him, presented the evidence to the DA, and the DA arrested him. Now the trial, all facts were presented in the trial, but the article lacks those details as well. So, the jury made the decision and found him guilty.

Abbott has been a staunch advocate and generally does not interfere with judicial proceedings. He does have the power to pardon. But if he pardons him now, he takes away the power of the jury who made the decision based on the evidence they heard. I understand the pro-gun advocates think this is a self-defense claim, but that was clearly rejected by the jury, which tells me they believe that he provoked a peaceful protest and that in and of itself is not self-defense.

https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us...uilty-verdict-protester-shooting-9737472.html

I would suggest you read the article above. I can see why he was found guilty. As he drove away, that is when he fired. And the protester was an AF veteran and legally carrying. I think in 2020, Governor Abbott had already signed a law to allow open carry in 2019. Thus the AF veteran was also legally carrying and was nonthreatening.