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

Not the greatest image... but if a stranger blocked your car and did this at your window, would you say they're brandishing a firearm at you?

 

Daniel Perry’s murder conviction in Austin, Texas might be legally sound.

You may only use deadly force during a deadly attack that you did not initiate.

THE KEY ISSUE IN THE TRIAL: WAS THE RIFLE POINTED AT PERRY?

'The prosecution argued to the jury that Foster never pointed his rifle at Perry, and so Perry’s claimed legal grounds for shooting Foster in self-defense simply doesn’t exist.'

'In support of this narrative of guilt the prosecution presented the testimony of multiple witnesses who told the jury that Foster never pointed his rifle at Perry. The confrontation itself was captured on poor quality video, from which screen captures were secured, and neither video nor stills ever show Foster pointing his gun at Perry.'

'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—and, as the initial deadly force aggressor Perry cannot justify his use of force as self-defense.'

 

the problem was he said he was going to do this days before this happened

 

not exactly... he did suggest that someone should do something similar. unless you've seen something I havn't. But ya, that was a bad idea. Its worth noting the guy that got shot also said similar stuff, in an interview he indicated counterprotestors were 'pu**ys who wouldn't say anything' as long as he had his rifle.

 

from here

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-death-in-texas.609676/page-7#post-1074144151

and

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-death-in-texas.609676/page-8#post-1074144553

 

This seems overwrought:

 

Is there a gun in that image? No wonder the jury was not convinced.

 

No.

The key issue was did David Perry instigate the event which started the shooting. The answer is yes. He stated his plans on killing someone. He drive 70 miles out of his way to kill someone. He drove his car through a red light into a group of pedestrians knowing they were there and knowing they were going to pass him by if he just sat through the red light.

But he never said that he planned on killing someone like Daniel did.

 

Seems like it, but he may change his mind based on politics.

 

Mobs surround cars trying to turn off of a public street and members of those mobs carrying firearms while participating in a riot break the law?
Criminals do criminal ****? You've cracked the case.

 

I mean I've watched the tape man, I have eyes. I disagree.

 

Many police do.

My step brother, his son is an officer in Florida. He carries what he calls a "throw away gun"

Many cops do. And its exactly what you think it is. A gun they carry around to throw down on a crime scene when they want to frame someone or make an error on their own part, and need a bail out.

 

Don't be coy. You can't see the butt of the gun?

How about from this angle?

 

The butt that is still pointed over his shoulder? Barrel was down, safety was on, and there was no round in the chamber

 

You would **** your pants just like any of us would. The real question is , imo, did this Army Sergeant drive around SEEKING this confrontation with plans on shooting one of the rioters. Let's say yes for argument sake, does that forfeit his right to defend himself when someone does eventually raise a gun towards him. IDK I can see how this was a tough court case for all sides.

 

I've been around people open carrying before, even people angry with me. My britches are okay. But the jury DID hear all of these arguments, and they DID unanimously find him guilty.

 

Isn't protesting and carrying guns a Constitutional right? You make it sound like a crime by calling them a 'mob' and 'riot'. Why? This kind of scenario will repeat many times over when people walk around with guns. Of course others will take it as a threat.

No, I cannot. No one could until you edited it with red highlight. If it was clearly visible, there would be no need to edit the evidence. Also, even if that was a rifle, its clearly pointing downwards.

 

The two images so far show a progression. The first one offered by paladin and then this second one are in sequence. See how the gun is coming up into battery? That's him beginning to brandish the weapon before he gets shot.

As to a round in the chamber: You're not required to be ****ing clairvoyant.

 

Nope, but it does between those facts and the texts/posts from the murderer it's pretty clear which of the two was itching for a fight and which was preparing to act in self defense if they had to. Also, pretty sure it isn't kosher to shoot someone who has their gun out, barrel down, approaching your vehicle after you ran a red light and almost hit several people.

 

Protesting and carrying guns? Yes. Mobbing a vehicle and attacking it for driving on a public street? No.
I'm calling them a rioting mob because that's what they are in the video when they attack this guy's vehicle.
You realize the guy walking with the gun isn't simply walking right? He's participating in the mob of people who are blocking this mans' path, and attacking him.
What was taken as a threat was not walking with a gun, it was participating in a mob of people blocking a man's egress and attacking him as well as bringing his firearm into battery to point at the driver.

The highlight is to help boomers like you who can't see and refuse to use their reading glasses. You're welcome grandpa.
Its not JUST a rifle its one a them TURRRRRRRIBLE AK47s. Its also being BROUGHT INTO BATTERY ie pulled up by the pistol grip and brought in line with the target IE the driver. Its damn near pointing in his window right there ffs.

 

I am not a boomer, and my eyes are just fine. It was a protest, not a riot, and the guy crammed his car into a crowd of people. He is lucky someone didn't shoot him for self defense.

He killed someone and was found guilty. The court did not buy your version, or the edited photo, so he is going to prison. Its called accountability. Want to arm the crazies, and then defend them when they murder people. Go figure.

 

Yes, and I take it you did not see the video of his car turning onto Congress Avenue and speeding. Even from that angle, I could see a group of protesters walking toward the camera in the far distance. And yet, he drove into them instead of taking those two far right lanes that were available to him. But then again, when he was doing that, he was texting and driving.

Second, there is no video of Foster pointing the gun at him. None. there was social media posts by Perry, the video of his car driving into the crowd. In fact, no evidence that Foster even fired. And from Texan's video, we do hear 7 shots. One shot, followed by 6 shots. But all the shots came from handguns, not one from AK47 which has that distinctive sound.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/28/us/austin-protest-shooting-witness/index.html

 

Exchanging dark humor that during the course of your work that evening you may be accosted during the riot and have to defend yourself isn't itching for a fight.
Those texts should not have passed the 403.3 test and if Wheels doesn't pardon him he's got a decent chance at a successful appeal on that basis.

He didn't run a red light. He was turning right. He didn't almost hit anyone, they were all clear of the bumper until they ran up and stopped his car surrounding it.
You've never turned right when someone is only halfway through a crosswalk so you're not going to hit them but may be a bit rude? That's not a mobbing offense ffs.

Its kosher to shoot someone who is participating in a mob attacking you and begins to brandish their firearm at you as Foster did at Perry.

 

He stopped at the intersection, then turned right, and when he turned right, he accelerated. But then again, he was "texting while driving." And under Texas law, Foster was legally carrying an AK47. It is legal in Texas to do that no matter who you are, assuming you have no criminal felony convictions. Foster was an AF veteran as well. But there are no reports that he raised his firearm. And from the Texan's video, that is clear that all shots came from handguns.

He was a civilian at that time. His service in the military has nothing to do with him being a soldier. And for soldiers, they keep their firearms, and ammunition locked unless authorized by a higher authority. And that means the gun range where the senior sergeant and officer decide the particulars of firing.

 

When you attack a vehicle as a mob it is now a riot.
The guy did not ram his car into a crowd, they were crossing the street as he was turning right and literally ran up to mob him and complain that he did not properly give way to the Revolution of Current Outrage.
You can tell he didn't ram his car into the crowd because he's not charged with vehicular ****ing assault and no one was injured except the guy who got shot for participating in the mob and beginning to bring his rifle into battery.

The texts admitted should not have passed 403.3. If he doesn't get pardoned or doesn't accept it he has a fine shot at appeal.
The man was a serving soldier ffs. He went through those psych evals you're so fond of wanting to require.
Its not an edited photo that was admitted ffs. Its literally an outline I added to photos that were admitted as stills from several video tapes, so you couldn't play coy and pretend you don't see the ****ing AK the guy is carrying at low ready and transitioning to a shooting stance.