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

Where the rifle was pointed IS the issue., and the conditions of the incident also contribute to the perceptions that any reasonable person would see.
According to some reports, it was specifically pointed at Perry, constituting a threat.
And I didn't say or imply Perry was a police officer, I was pointing out that such a threat authorizes the use of deadly force for them.

Here's some of the testimony, below. It seems obvious that the circumstances presented a lot of volatility and constituted a threat even if the rifle had not been present.
That overall situation defines the environment when the incident took place, and what perceptions would be justifiable..

It's all in the conduct of the person. If the person is "brandishing" the weapon or pointing it at someone specifically, that is reasonably seen as a threat. Simply carrying it is not.
Being part of an aggressive mob is in itself a kind of intimidation, and reason to believe a threat exists. If armed, it tends to say you are not carrying the weapon and are heavily armed without any malicious intent.

"Several witnesses admitted they kicked, hit and even banged on Perry’s car."
“We just ask people to put themselves in the position of being trapped in a car, being swarmed by a crowd of protesters assaulting the car from all sides, while a masked man runs up to the car brandishing an assault rifle, 130 rounds of ammunition, an asp and a knife. Then, picture the rifle starting to raise from an already low-ready position."

"Several witnesses, who were at the protest demonstration the night Foster died, were called to testify Thursday. They recalled seeing Perry’s car drive forward into a crowd of protesters. The protesters, which included Foster, became “incensed” at the presence of the vehicle, a witness said."

( source- local news; https://www.kxan.com/news/local/aus...to-deadly-shooting-at-austin-protest-testify/ )

Unfortunately, we are in an age where news is no longer reliable, and often people in authority are willing to distort truth and law to placate the demands of radicals and hostile public opinions- to avoid political pressure and backlash.

 

Yes, and evidence presented at the trial shows the rifle pointed down, not at anyone. Below is the picture that shows Garret Foster holding his rifle. Notice where it was pointing, downward.



Thus, Daniel Perrty, who said he was pointing at him, could not prove that claim with this picture just moments outside his truck. There was no evidence to claim otherwise despite what the internet think what happened.

As far as Daniel Perry, he was probably on his phone, texting, while driving. It is why he did the "Hollywood Stop" and appears he was driving excessively towards protesters who had a right to be there. And there is evidence priro that night where he had several conversations, some of whom were warning that was "not a good shoot" based on what Daniel Perry proposed.

The jury heard all of this, and still found him guilty. The defense tried to make this about Garret Foster, but the Texas judge denied that evidence, and rightfully so. It will confuse the jury on the facts of the case.

This is why he is serving 25 years right now and probably won't be recommended by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to be recommended for pardon by Governor Abbott. They will have all the facts of the case and whether Daniel Perry is truly remorseful for what he did. He will serve at least 20 years of that 25-year sentence and is now incarcerated in the TDOC unit called Mac Stringfellow unit in SE Texas near Houston, TX, where this unit houses anyone from level G1 to G4. He is probably a G3 or G4 category right now given his conviction and charge, plus he is a fish, a newbie.

 

Are you so naive as to believe this proves where the rifle was pointed 10 seconds later?
Did you fail to note that his right hand in on the grip and his trigger finger is alongside the trigger?
The rifle is being held in a "ready" position, meaning it could be quickly moved to the active position.
I would also ask why he was carrying 130 rounds of ammunition. Perhaps expecting a zombie attack? He had a reason.
It's obvious that the situation would have presented a high threat level, when you factor in the attack on Perry's car and the crowds emotional state.
The question really would not be if Perry would have felt his life was in danger, but how far you let that scenario play out before you act.

As far as why he is in prison, the answer may be the same as why Chauvin is in prison- and that would be that it became politically necessary to adjust the interpretation of facts, and throw him under the bus to soothe the savage beasts that threaten our society with violence if they don't get their way- and that is a tragic mistake for us to make. It's been happening far too often in recent years.

We are speculating about this situation based on the limitations of the reports we see. We do not know what was in these people's minds at the time; all we can do is surmise based on the limits of information we have. I would suggest putting yourself in Perry's place, and think about what you would believe was happening and if you would feel you were in danger. Ask yourself why a man would arm himself in that way to go to a public demonstration.

I'm always amazed at the ability of people who align with the left to dismiss anything that would contradict what they want to believe.

 

His hand should be on the grip, and should be alongside the trigger...not on it. Thats appropriate. You didnt at all make the point you thougth you did with this.

 

And that is the ready position. That means it's being carried in a way that allows it to become quickly active, with minimum motions and effort. If the rifle was on a sling over his shoulder, that would be different. Depending on how well you are trained and how you think- you don't put your finger on the trigger until you are on the verge of use. If you do, you invite accidental discharge. We have no idea what this person's level of knowledge or expertise with firearms is, or any details about the weapon. Mine is pretty extensive, from military training many years ago to precision long range rifle competition.

My only point is that the person portrays a walking threat. Not just because he's carrying a rifle, but how; the combination of position, of having a substantial amount of ammo, and carrying an ASP, extending baton that police will use in riot controls. He was combat ready, or at least in his own mind was. Was he looking for it? If not, why was he ready for it?

This is perception, and that is in the eye of the beholder. But I assure you, if he was approaching me in that situation, I would already have my hand on my concealed carry gun. Not visibly, not raised or pointed- but ready.

You missed the point, did not see what I see in the photo. Perhaps you see what you want to see, that's common.
I'm not making a call as to who was right or wrong, but to the appearances and the appropriate perception under the circumstances.

 

That is the only public picture available, but the jury saw all evidence and concluded, including blown-up video with a still photograph, of where that rifle actually was right before the shooting. The jury, not the judge, made the decision to convict based on the preponderance of the evidence. And in that photo, a minute or two before the shooting, shows the rifle pointing downward, not towards anyone. It is not the argument of how quickly a firearm can be at the ready position. For instance, it takes a person less than 3 tenths of a second to have their firearm in a concealed position and also ready to fire,. However, if you fire at someone, even though armed, and not in a position to return fire, you too can be charged with homicide, or felony murder as well. Thus the argument "his life is in danger" to apply, the other person has to be the one committing the first act to begin with. This type of argument by you is used very frequently among drug dealers where their deal went bad and everyone was armed. And yet, the prosecution wins these cases 99.9% of the time.

Finally, no one is speculating here. The trial transcripts show what the jury heard and saw by both the prosecution and defense. Since the jury has already made its decision, it is in the appeals courts system now, and that too is a slow process. But even in Texas, a conservative state, no appeals court is going to overturn this, not even the State Supreme Court when it gets there. And Gov Abbott cannot pardon him until the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles gives him the goahead, and they are not likely doing that anytime soon and more than likely not given all the facts of the case.

Finally, we haven't even talked about all the text messages by Daniel Perry made in which he showed his intentions or possible intentions. But even there, he was told that was a bad idea. Perry should have listened to them instead of the fly by night talking points he received.

 

Of course- it is speculation. All of it. I was referring to our conversation, but it does apply to the jury. Nobody knows exactly what was in the mind of either party, we draw a conclusion based on what we think the evidence says and what we think the motives and intents were- and of course, on how reliable and accurate we believe the evidence to be.... and finally, subject to the influence of personal bias and beliefs.

Sadly, in our justice system the objective of both sides is to win. While there are attorneys who value justice, winning takes precedence over justice for most attorneys. I don't know how much courtroom experience you have, but I've seen this many times as an expert witness. Lying under oath is common, selective interpretation of facts is guaranteed. And it's not just the attorneys; judges tilt the scales frequently. Technicalities allow truth to be buried and can totally shift the conclusion. I've seen a judge actually conduct a full-day trial and then announce he couldn't reach a decision, and the litigants would have to figure it out for themselves. In recent years, the political influence on the justice system has become a very strong influence as well, in cases that get media attention and are issue-related.

I'm not going to invest time into researching all the details; I have much more important things to do. I do want to say that every injustice in a court is an injustice to every citizen, and degrades the quality of our system. I'm not saying this case is or is not one of those, I'm saying that to me, the conclusions sound marginal. Lacking all the information, that's not definitive of anything.

 

That's almost word-for-word what the gun haters said in the 80s when Florida became the first (or pert near) State to allow civilians to legally carry. They were wrong then just as you are wrong now.

 

Yes...the ready position is appropriate. Keeping your finger along the trigger, but not on it...is appropriate. The point you think you are making isnt at all as strong as you thought.

And no, he doesn't portray a walking threat. He portrays someone walking, and ready to be a threat if one is presented to him.

No one is able to do an ammo count on him. THey see someone who is ready to defend themselves. What they do with that info, is on them.

I didnt miss the point, your point was not effective. Perhaps, it is you who is seeing what you want to see. ANd yes, that is common.

 

People believe what they want to believe. I Think any rational person seeing this man in a public situation would hardly see a person needing to defend themselves. Where was the threat? Were there people there from an opposing side, making threats of violence? As far as I know, he was the only openly armed person in the crowd. HE was the person openly demonstrating he was prepared to be violent, prepared to be part of it.

He was a white man, with a black fiance at a BLM protest. His partner had lost all four limbs to a medical episode which developed into sepis. He had been with her 10 years. Apparently he was pretty radical on the BLM issue, and took his guns to protests regularly. You have to know that when you are masked and carrying a rifle in a ready position, you are going to present an intimidating, threatening image. That has to be intentional, part of his state of mind and purpose. While it doesn't say he intended to shoot someone, it does say he intended to intimidate people and that doing so was planned and intentional.
That IS a challenge to other people's rights. It may be a bluff, and it may not... but it is an intentional act with that purpose. That sets the stage. This was not the first time, and it had been successful in the past.

The court did not allow testimony addressing Fosters state of mind or intent, however. I find that by itself demonstrates a strong bias, by the court, against the defendant. Not personally, but to the idea that judgments need to appease the protest movement demands.

In one video (not from the event in question) when asked about his gun, replied, "People who oppose us are ******* and won't do anything about it." That tells us he enjoyed being confrontational; challenging people with the intimidation he created with a weapon, daring them to oppose his cause. There are also statements of his being associated with the "Boogaloo Boys" , which is referred to as an anti-government extremist movement and militia.

Bear in mind that the protest he was attending was related to the George Floyd case in Minneapolis. A degree of hostility and implied threats has been the norm at such protests.

The very fact this event related to that created a political pressure in the prosecution, as it did in Minneapolis with Chauvin. Brandishing a firearm is illegal in Texas, but that failed to get any attention in the case too.

Too many things about this case have a foul odor.

Because YOU fail to see the point doesn't mean it wasn't effective- except to you. And I suspect you understand it, but find it conflicts with chosen beliefs. That's your privilege.
My concern is that any case where the decisions are manipulated in any way is damaging to the justice system overall. That hurts everyone.

 

Any rational person seeing him not in an active firing stance and instead at a very low ready is going to see a person willing to defend themselves.

The threat could be anywhere, being prepared to be violent should be the norm for anyone eho values their lives.

The point you tried to make wasn't effective. That's simply the reality.

No rational person can see the low ready as an immenent threat.

Speculate all you want about what you think his words mean, people believe whatever they want. But the eat he carried the weapon was appropriate.

 

"You have to know that when you are masked and carrying a rifle in a ready position, you are going to present an intimidating, threatening image. That has to be intentional, part of his state of mind and purpose. While it doesn't say he intended to shoot someone, it does say he intended to intimidate people and that doing so was planned and intentional."

do not disagree, said the same about Kyle taking an ar-15 to a protest

 

The basic logic needed to understand what behavior says about motives is not that difficult to use. In this case, quite obvious is you can avoid cluttering the process with what you want to beleive.

When you go to an event voluntarily, openly armed to "defend" yourself, you must have expected you might have need to do so. That has to be true, because you prepared for it. You could have avoided the expected confrontation by staying home, out of harm's way- but you didn't do that either- so you are choosing confrontation. Going looking for it- Or?.

IF that is not your purpose, the only other is that you are openly armed because you intend to intimidate people, using the implied threat of being armed to emphasize your political message.
I think that is the correct conclusion in this case.

These are choices, and Foster made them. His statement that "those who oppose us are ******* and won't do anything about it" tells you he felt he had a cause, and could intimidate those who didn't agree without any risk to himself. Bully tactics.

He felt that "poking the bear" and getting away with it somehow proved his power, his ego and supported his belief. A wise person would know that is a dangerous thing to do.

Connect the dots. It's reasoning; common sense, not random maybe stuff. You don't have to have a degree in psychology to put it together and understand.
You do have to stop thinking like Foster did and excusing the choice of putting himself in the position where this could happen. Sooner or later, you poke the wrong bear.

 

That would be true as well.
One difference, assuming the news reports are legit, is that Kyle was attacked first.
Personally, If I felt I needed to take a rifle to any event that wasn't a shooting competition, I'd be asking myself why I would go there in the first place.
You have to know that openly carrying a rifle under those circumstances is both intimidating and provocative.

 

...<iframe width="560" height="315" src="" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This guy does try to be objective. I do not necessarily agree w/ everything he says gut he does make an effort to be even handed.

 

Basic conclusion of human behavior dictates that a low ready is not an active threat. No rational person views it as a threat based on that. There is an active firing stance for a reason. It's simply him being ready to defend if someone attacks. This is very reasonable.

One should have the interpretation that defending yourself may be necessary regardless of where you go. The point yiu rhiught you made wasn't a good one.

You can conclude incorrectly based in an incorrect interpretation of human behavior he shows up to intimidate people bit that is not a reasonable conclusion.

Your reasoning isn't correct. Ice connected the dots and came to the correct conclusion. People will see what they want.

 

I'll make a note of the gaps in your rationality and consider that if I read anything you write in the future, which is doubtful.

 

Interesting content. Curious what this guy considers he offers is of a value worthy of Patreon funding.

The one thing that seems incongruous to me is that the judge in this case may have allowed and rightfully so, an admittance into evidence of prior social media statements by Perry, but not by Foster. Supposing there is a possibility that Foster had similar posts wherein he expressed an interest in killing someone, well, that would be of interest to me if I had been on that jury. Just to be clear, I think allowing Perry’s social media into evidence was correct, whereas excluding Foster’s was not.

 

The only speculation is on you because you cannot accept the results of the jury. The jury flat out rejected the idea that he pointed the rifle at Daniels. Photos show the evidence that did not happen either. Period, end of story.

We have an adversarial judicial system. An adversarial judicial system has a strange way of discovering the truth in one way or the other, generally. Yes, both sides like to win. Both use judicial procedures and laws to make their points. The defense tried to argue self defense. Prosecution argued felony murder. The prosecution shows their evidence and the defense theirs. But in the end, the jury got it right based on what they saw. And that is all that matters.

You need to invest time and research if you want to continue arguing this point. You are not going to pass this debate if you want to use your typical pseudo-intellectualism like you normally do.

 

I would hope you are not so naive as to believe that juries "get it right", or that decisions aren't influenced and to a considerable extent, are the product of manipulations of facts. I've served as an expert witness many times, and while these were just civil cases they were still intensely manipulative in the process. In one such case when the defendants decided to settle, their attorney came over afterward and said "You are a really good witness. I wish you had been ours." Every time he tried to compromise the statements of my report about the issues, I blocked him; shot him down. Only because I had been in that position several times, understood the game, expected it and was prepared for it.

And of course- it's not up to you to decide if I "pass this debate". You either honestly consider someone else's viewpoint, or you reject it because you don't want to be wrong. That's your privilege. You win nothing.

If you go into a courtroom expecting the truth will prevail over the charges, you haven't a chance. The truth only prevails when you can protect it from the distortions that attorneys or prosecutors are highly skilled at using, and will use every time. Perhaps you have heard the saying that a person choosing to be his own lawyer has a fool for a client? That is why. Regardless of truth, it's a contest to win. It is never simply an examination of facts. Not once have I seen that. The person defending themselves does not understand the game. A person who has not been in those positions is also a person who does not understand the game.

The sole issue here does not pivot on how directly the rifle was pointed at Perry, but to the apparent threat Perry would have perceived.
When the use of deadly force is involved in a self-defense claim, the person must reasonably believe that their use of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's infliction of great bodily harm or death. That is the core of self-defense.

A mob surrounded Perry's car; they were yelling, pounding and banging on the car. That alone is more than enough reason for a rational person to believe their life is in danger.
More people are killed every year by beatings with fists and feet than are killed with all long guns put together; the presence of a gun is not necessary to feel you are in mortal danger in those conditions.

Then a masked man carrying a rifle in the ready position comes toward the car, and is focused on Perry.
Unfortunately, you are apparently unwilling or unable to imagine yourself in that position.

If you can quit excusing the hostility of the mob long enough to put yourself in Perry's position, you would be in fear for your life too.

This isn't justification; it's understanding the event and what we should learn from it. Reasonable civility would have prevented it, being intentionally confrontational promoted it.

 

This is projection at its finest. The gaps you see, are in your own logic.

 

Our judicial system is flawed, decisions arent made on facts nor objective arguments. Its made based on opinons, speculation, motive assignment, etc.

Anyone can be accused of anything, put into the justice system with not an ounce of objective evidence, and found guilty.

Our standards in it need to change. The "reasonable" standard doesn't work in a nation of fools who cant be reasonable.

 

Juries weigh the evidence presented to them. They do not weigh any political considerations whatsoever. Does not matter who the person is, what political party they belong too, etc. The only difference really is who has the money to defend himself legally and who does not. That's it.

But Daniel Perry was convicted while KR was acquitted. Both had evidence. But in my argument with KR is not the jury, it was the judge allowing the word "rioter" to be used and to try the victims as part of the Defense. In my view, the victim should not be tried, although defense attorneys try to use that argument, or try the police as in the OJ Simpson Murder trial, and so forth. It provides the background on the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

Perry was stupid. In one video where he did a "Hollywood Stop and excelled onto the next street, my belief is he was texting and driving or calling on the cell phone and driving. In other words, he was distracted, royally. He also took assumptions thinking that because he was in a conservative state, his word would go further than a BLM protest and their witnesses. And finally, he did not know Texas law even though we do have "stand your ground" laws through the castle doctrine. But the prosecution was well prepared and had enough video evidence, evidence that does not lie, to show their case. He was acquitted of a lesser charge, mostly by the chief detective testifying for the defense.

Carrying the rifle in a ready position is not considered a "threatening manner" under Texas state law. For self-defense to be considered when both are carrying is divided into two criteria. First criterion, was whether either party doing an aggressive act, and the second criterion is who pointed the firearm first. It was clear that Perry pointed the firearm first, and that neither was committing any legal violations. Thus, the protester had every right to carry that firearm just as much as Perry had his. This is not an either/or situation here. Sorry, but it is legal to carry any type of long rifle in that position and has been in existence for a long time. Personal opinions range from he should not have carried at all or should have put it around his shoulder, but those are opinions, not legal requirements. And the jury was instructed as such.

The rest of your post is pure hogwash. The protests were peaceful and were known to the Austin police and pretty much everyone else along their path.

 

That is BS. They are made on facts presented in court, nowhere else. Not from TV, not from newspapers, not from radio, not from any outside sources. It is only those facts presented in court based on the laws of procedural evidence under state law. Perry had a good defense, but he faced too many bad facts that the defense had to contend with from his texts to the video evidence that does not match what he told police or detectives. The flaw we have is those who have money vs those who don't.

Second, for someone to be accused of something, there has to be evidence legally, and enough probable cause to arrest under state or federal law. The resonable standard is the standard we need and it is used by jury for anything from DUI to homicide. I am not talking accusations from the internet here, but within our legal system. Evidence also needs to be obtained legally as well for that probable cause to be effective. But some types of crimes are harder to prove than others, and keep in mind, we have had cold cases finally proven with DNA and other evidence that met the probable cause for arrest such as the California Serial Killer or the BLK Killer or others. You can't tell me those cases are flawed, or is it just conservative people getting caught with law violations here?

 

Its not BS at all, they are often times made up completely of opinions. The "facts" presented are often times testimonial and therefore unverifiable and people just are forced to weigh thier own beliefs based on their own biases, including judges and juries. We have seen recent cases of judges demonstrating clear biases to the point they shoudl be disbarred.

These "facts" werent "facts" at all, and what the left calls "facts" often times arent facts at all.

The flaw has little to do with money. The reasonable person standard is inherently flawed, but those flaws are growing as our nation becomes increasingly unreasonable, particularly on the left.

And "secondly", legal evidence is literally anything. Just because you put the term "legal" in front of it doesn't give it some special power or meaning. Testimony, is legal evidence and loved by the left when what is being said fits their narrative they wish to portray. Yet it is the weakest version of evidence that exists and in some cases is just downright lies.

Probably cause is determined by this "evidence", and can be determined as "reasonable" just because a person in power says so.

I'm not at all saying every case ever is nonsense, but we are increasingly accepting non objective evidence as objective evidence, and as the nation becomes more unreasonable the reasonable person standard is becoming weaker and weaker.