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

LOL, no. there is evidence. Evidence can include, but not limited to, DNA, eyewitness testimony, video evidence, and so forth. But they were facts in the case. In the indictment, in the courtroom, and in the legal system. The "left" was simply pointing that out. So you are saying that everyone who gave eyewitness testimony lied? The video evidence lied too? The video evidence does not match what Perry said and pretty much verified what the two eyewitnesses said on the stand.

Second, there is the reasonable standard and the reasonable person standard. The reasonable person standard is used primarily with sexual assault crimes. The reasonable standard is used with self defense and other such crimes. It is also used in jury instructions when evaluating circumstantial evidence.

I think what you are not accepting is that one of your own is charged with crimes. Remember, even the Trump Administration charged several people within the Trump's inner circle and they mostly pleaded guilty. A couple of them received pardons from Trump, but not all, like Cohen for instance. And that is the sad reality. Look, you are all for the current standard for those who commit crimes and try to use the same excuses or arguments Trump uses. Trump is not the only one who uses the arguments he is making, nearly every defendant in one way or the other uses those same arguments. And any change you are referring to will make it harder for the prosecution to win their case or even the DA to actually charge the person if you change the reasonable standard. And that standard is the most neutral standard we have.

 

Again, what you view as evidence falls under the standard of "anything can be evidence" lol.

That is not a reasonable standard. And if we are going to continue to allow subjective evidence such as testimony on someones character, then we need to ensure objective evidence is included in that. That isnt happening the way it should.

What I am saying is eye witness testiomony can be a lie, or it could be true. Its impossible to know. That makes it weak and meaningless evidence on its face.

The reasonable person standard and reasonable standard is overwhelmingly showing its cracks as an effective standard in a world of leftists whom are becoming increasingly unreasonable.

What I am not accepting is that people, who have no relation to me whatsoever that is a delusion you are choosing to have if you believe otherwise, are being charged based on such an overwhelming lack of objective evidence. This isn't acceptable.

Pleading guilty in the face of an unreasonable court system to ensure you do the best you can to protect yourself is not indicative of thier guilt. Pardons aren't indicative of guilty either, as it can serve as a way to overcome to corrupt system. Again, the way you are interpreting these subjective issues isn't at all "facts" yet you present them as such, as do these court systems. Forcing juries and judges to make decisions based on thier own subjective interpretations of subjective evidence. That allows corruption to thrive.

 

It does take some logic and skill to see them. It takes an open mind to learn those things too. Perhaps someday you will find that.

 

Peaceful- with the crowd surrounding Perry's car and beating in it. The burning of Minneapolis and a dozen more major protests that destroyed billions in property and took lives were "peaceful" too.
That view IS the way that politics distort perception. That IS the way crazy things like this are enabled; people reacting to emotions fueled by radicals trying to energize lynch-mob mentality, rather than common sense and logic.

Juries, prosecutors, and judges are all subject to the same human weaknesses as the general public, plus the fact that power tends to corrupt people's logic. That corruption of thinking is not limited to people in power- they need to corrupt the thinking of the ordinary person to their kind of thinking as well. Looks like the gotcha.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/26/us/austin-shooting-texas-protests.html
"Mr. Foster, wearing a black bandanna and a baseball cap, bumped into an independent journalist at the march on Saturday, and he spoke matter-of-factly about the weapon that was draped on a strap in front of him. “They don’t let us march in the streets anymore, so I got to practice some of our rights,” Mr. Foster told the journalist, Hiram Gilberto Garcia, who was broadcasting the interview live on Periscope. “If I use it against the cops, I’m dead,” he conceded.

On Twitter, Kenneth Casaday, the president of the Austin police officers’ union, retweeted a video clip of Mr. Foster explaining to Mr. Garcia, the independent journalist, why he brought his rifle. In the clip, Mr. Foster is heard using curse words to talk about “all the people that hate us,” but are too afraid to “stop and actually do anything about it.”

In his tweet, Mr. Casaday wrote: “This is the guy that lost his life last night. He was looking for confrontation and he found it.”

You are entitled to believe what you want. And contrary to what you think, so am I.

 

Projection at its finest. I already have it, and base my opinons on logic. Perhaps one day, you will to.

 

you be surprised what is evidence. A fit bit is an evidence that can prove guilt or innocence. Your phone, or more specifically, the tracking of your phone, can be evidence. But no one single piece of evidence proves guilt or innocence. It is a preponderance of the evidence, or all the evidence given as a whole, to guilt or innocensem. Because of the preponderance of the evidence, that is where the reasonable standard comes along for the jury instructions.

The other thing you don't understand is the juries. For criminal trials, and even to some extent civil jury trials, the jury wants everything tied up in a bow where they are led to the perverbial path of guilt or innocences. They, the jury determine what is and what is not relavant to the case. Juries really like videos, DNA, pictures, and text messages. They want to see motive, opportunity, and intent even if it is not what the law says. But the preponderance of the evidence with Daniel Perry led to a guilty verdict and there was enough reasonable doubt for KR to be found not guilty in his trial. I understand how and why the jury came to those conclusions in each of those trials. For the KR trial, my disagreement is not with the jury, but with the judge and the ruling to allow the defense to call the victims "rioters." That was irrelevant to the case of whether KR truly acted in self-defense or not, and the key was Rosenbaum, not the other two. How goes Rosenbaum and how the jury perceives him will so go the other two. You did not have that with the Perry situation, and there was enough video evidence, and the text messages to show the motive, intent, and opportunity of what he did. Foster was not threatening based on he video evidence presented to the jury. He had a right to be there, with a firearm, in the ready position, which by Texas law, is not in a menancing manner. Perry did not know or understand truly what Texas law was and tried to use self-defense. You will be amazed how many people use this defense and most do not win their case.

Our system was written to be judged by a jury of your peers. That is in the US Constitution, 6th amendment. Otherwise, we will let the families of the victims decide your fate or we shall let the Lord High Executioner decide your fate with guilty until proven innocent. Your Choice if you want to change the US Constitution and the current system.

 

Some people who do bad things hide in plain sight. Open carry is becoming more and more common, so is concealed carry. But whether it is open carry or concealed carry, it is still based on choice. Foster chose to open carry that was within the law. Perry, IMO, was texting and driving or talking on the cell phone and driving, was highly distracted, did not see the crowd on the street, drove towards them unaware, was all of a sudden confronted by them because he drove into them, and then shot what he saw was a firearm. He then try to explain his way out of it, and his explanation did not jive with the video evidence, and other evidence that was presented.

 

I think you really need to look at the video when Perry turned on the street where the protesters were going. I honestly think Perry did not see them because Perry was distracted. You see the hollywood stop that he made, then turned, sped up, and all of a sudden was in the middle of the protests going down the street. You do know it was approved by the city and they were on ONE side. Perry was on the same side that they were, which also shows he wasn't paying attention. I personally think he was on the phone, talking or texting, while driving. In other words, he was distracted. He then saw a person with a gun, and fired because he was distracted. That is why he was charged with felony murder.

Foster was legally carrying. All evidence points that Foster never pointed the gun at him. He had it in a ready position yes, but that is not threatening under Texas law because open carry is legal and that is one method to have the firearm in a legal posiiton and open carry. Perry did not know the law. I think once he realized his mistake, he tried to explain his way out of it, but all the video evidence shows otherwise.

Foster was trying to protect the people who were protesting. That is well within his rights as with any group who wants to protest. That is legal. There are not two sets of laws where conservatives can bring firearms and liberals can't. Don't be so damn foolish in that argument.

 

I wouldny be surprised at all, I understand precisely how the smallest thing can be evidence. But I also understand how vague laws are written, and how easily we can be fooled into believing testimony and circumstance are taken as ibjective evidence when they are not.

The reasonable standard has lost its use because people, particularly on the left, have become unreasonable. Determined to hold whatever view suits their worldview as opposed to putting themselves In the shoes of a defendant.

Projection, I understand juries just fine and how emotional rather than logical they are. This doesn't at all help your case.

They were rioters, this is beyond refute. To pretend otherwise is simply unreasonable. Further proving my point. It doesn't matter if you think its relevant, it's an accurate description.


Let the families decide your fate? More irrational nonsense lol.