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

Link?

 

Lead detective testifying for the defense:

Fugitt also disputed some of the descriptions of the scene that prosecution witnesses described that suggested Perry was in a hurry to drive into the protest.

He said a witness who testified that Perry maneuvered around other cars on Fourth Street before he made a right turn on Congress was wrong. A video shot from a nearby building showed that Perry did not do that, Fugitt testified. Witnesses had also said Perry accelerated when he made the turn onto Congress, but the video showed he slowed down, said Fugitt. He also said Perry left no skid marks or tire marks at the scene.

 

https://www.statesman.com/story/new...-arrest-self-defense-possibility/70082203007/

 

It's pointed down, somewhere between the window and ground. Its only a single frame, so we don't know whether it stayed there or not, but since we don't know and we only have the one image, we'll assume it did. If a group of people moved in front of your car, clearly intent on making you stop and preventing you from leaving, and a stranger moved to your window with a rifle shouldered, but pointed down at your door instead of at your face, would you consider that individual to be 'brandishing' a firearm at you?

 

I have looked at the video that Texan posted. From there, you can't tell who was who from that distance using your visual accuity. Even with 20/20 vision, you cannot tell. A group of people. But if you watch the entire video

You have this link from the Austin American Statesman in which a senior officer testified. He testimony states, "AK-47 rifle bullets can penetrate car doors and police vests, Cleveland said. The officer testified that if he had encountered someone with an AK-47 who was carrying the rifle slung down like Foster was, and that person raised the barrel slightly, then he would shoot them." Read what the sentence says, not what you want it to say. In this sentence, the police officer was giving a hypothetical, not an affirmative. It was confirmed that the rifle barrel was pointing downward, that part is confirmed by the officer. But the hypothetical was if " that person raised the barrel slightly, then he would have shot them in self-defense. The officer earlies in the article said he never encountered Foster that night but had in the past and stated to him he was carrying the rifle in a dangerous manner. That does not mean Foster was acting illegally when carrying the rifle, since it was pointed downward which was totally legal.

And then we have this link. The lead detective, the homicide detective who said he didn't arrest Perry because self-defense is a possibility explained in that still photograph that "Fugitt said there was a photo taken by a witness at the protest that shows Foster with a raised AK-47 rifle standing at Perry's car door. A defense witness showed a 3D representation of the photo on Tuesday with Foster standing at an angle by the driver' s window. The representation showed Foster's right arm bent and raised as if he was holding something, but it doesn't show Foster's rifle or his left arm because those details were not in the photo." It may be that Foster is left handed, which would explain why one could not see definitively the AK 47. Defense wanted to show that photo to show reasonable doubt, but could not definitely prove it.

 

They never told the guy that night. The detective that took the stand made that his professional opinion, but clearly stated in testimony that he saw him before doing this and thought it was dangerous in doing so. That is not the same as "acting agreesively." details, details, details folks. Ya'll are missing quite a few.

https://www.statesman.com/story/new...-victim-warned-way-carried-rifle/70066884007/

 

Lead homicide detective testifying for the defense. That knowledge, experience, and expertise I will take every time over all of those witnesses that were there "with" Foster.

 

Texting while driving, especially in that area, is what contributed, and possible the single determining factor, in the whole affair. It was not the 20-30 people per se, who were definitely walking down the street and could be seen from Texan's video, but the fact that Perry was not aware of his surrounding while driving. Hence why Perry drove recklessly, IMO, into the crowd, is probably more accurate. There is clearly two lanes open to him to the right, but he went towards the center of the road, where the crowd was, who was more or less on the left side of the road, waking with the traffic direction.

Again, nothing about psych evals is necessary here. Has nothing to do with the facts at hand. That psych eval was when Perry enlisted, not after or on that day.

Again, the judge can affirm the jury's decision or go in it on his own. But judges pretty much affirm the jury's decision. The judge will now schedule a punishment phase or sentencing phase. If Perry waives the right of a jury to determine to sentence, which I think he has, then the judge decides. And based on factors, he will be sentenced and that is going to depend on the charge. I think Perry was charged with 2nd-degree homicide. So, the maximum penalty is life or life without the possibility of parole. And then you have impact statements. And it has been reported today that the defense team will appeal the jury's verdict. This article states that his defense team is asking for a new trial. It says, "Perry’s attorneys filed a motion Tuesday asking for a new trial, arguing that the defense team was not allowed to introduce evidence they believe showed Foster repeatedly instigated confrontations and harassed other drivers on the streets before the night of the deadly shooting." I wonder what that evidence is, and this is more or less a technicality of what is and what is not acceptable. If the defense tried to use disparaging remarks or actions on Foster, that is generally not allowed under Texas law unless it meets prior bad acts. And for that to happen, Foster would have been in the act of committing a crime in the process, such as what happened in Kenosha for instance. But walking down the street legally, or the political nature of the protest is not allowed and meets the hearsay rule.

I know the Texas governor appoints them to the board. But the Board has pretty much been impartial when recommending pardons or clemency to the Governor. So, they will look at the case. If they see anything legally wrong with the trial, and I mean that in a literal sense, not a political one, then they may recommend a pardon. But if they don't see anything legally wrong with the trial, then they probably won't. Remember, Trump appointed three justices to the Supreme Court, and yet, none of them have been loyal enough to forgo their judicial criteria in the hope of pleasing DJT. And the same can be said with Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. And I know there is a lot of political talk on this from both sides, but it is best to wait and see.

https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/how...pardons-and-paroles-decide-who-gets-pardoned/

 

I think he testified for both the prosecution and defense. And that can happen with police officers sometimes. But his statements pretty much shot up any chance at reasonable doubt, and he was the one who arrested Foster. He mainly testified with the aggravated assault charge that the DA brought and which perry was acquitted of. BTW, I already gave his statement as such in which he argued against charging Perry with the second crime.

 

Did you read the link?

It says, ""I felt I needed to do more investigation," David Fugitt, who was a homicide detective at the time of Foster's death, told jurors Thursday. Fugitt, the final witness in the eight-day trial, now works for the Texas attorney general's office. He testified Wednesday as a defense witness." That appears that he was doing his due dilligence.

Then you have this, "Fugitt said there was a photo taken by a witness at the protest that shows Foster with a raised AK-47 rifle standing at Perry's car door. A defense witness showed a 3D representation of the photo on Tuesday with Foster standing at an angle by the driver' s window. The representation showed Foster's right arm bent and raised as if he was holding something, but it doesn't show Foster's rifle or his left arm because those details were not in the photo." Notice what I highlighted in bold and underlined here. From his expert testimony, not even he could make it out affirmatively that Perry had his rifle raised. He had one arm raised, his nondominant arm, and I suspect Foster was left-handed since the right hand was raised. But the photo does not show if the rifle was raised. The defense defiinitely try to instill reasonable doubt, but as the jury looked at the photo, they determined they could not tell, hence why the jury verfict.

 

No one said he ran a red light. He stopped, turned right and accelerated.

 

I watched the video posted where it shows the defendant drive his car right before the shooting.
I thought he was being reckless when he pulled into the crowded street, comparing driving to being in a street festival atmosphere. You have to be slow and cautious. No one was paying any attention to him before he made the turn. Just guessing, but he seemed impatient and a little miffed people were in the street hindering his making a right turn, and turned abruptly. When he did, he moved about 20 feet or so, and immediately came to a sudden stop, as the back end of the car raised up, and a horn loudly and a little angry soundind went off, maybe the defendant. On the video, I couldn't tell what was in front of him, but judging by the reaction of those close by there were people there and he was approaching them aggressively before he hit the brakes. It seemed to get a lot of attention, for a few seconds, then when the shots rang out, everyone scattered.
I think the defendant went to that city with the intention of confronting protesters one way or another. He used his car aggresively to instigate something, or just was pissed off, and shot his gun and killed someone.
So he had some *cause* in this before the shots were even fired, sort of an escalation of events, imo. Personally, I think he set up the situation somewhat intentionally, kind of like bumping into someone you don't like in a bar. Like, yeah go ahead what you gonna do?
The still image seems to show the deceased with his rifle pointed down. Let's say for sake of argument that the deceased DID point his AK at the defendant. That would mean that the defendant would of more than likely had his gun already in hand and ready to shoot, because there wasn't much time. In that scenario, the deceased had a distinctive upper hand UNLESS he was too close. If the deceased actually had intention of shooting the defendant, the roles in the trial would have been reversed. Like his friend told him that causing a situation to shoot someone is not a good shoot. Like the bar scenario, bumping into someone to start the fight, then shooting them, but a little more complicated.
Would I have fired in that situation? My answer is probably not, having been in a similar situation, but honestly I don't know. I know I wouldn't have been in that situation to begin with, and I feel that the guy was correctly convicted and the deceased paid the price for being stupid enough to bring a AK to a protest. I do not think the defendant was in grave danger. Sticking an open hand out the open window would have been enough, and driving like he had some sense. It looked like to me he was looking for a conflict and found enough to pull the trigger.
Just my opinion............

 

He did not accelerate.

 

Alternative facts here from the same video?

 

The deceased did not have any rounds chambered. So we'll never know whether he tried to shoot first or return fire (probably not, since he knew he couldn't). But since the shooter couldn't know that, it's immaterial to the self defense claim.

What you seem to be calling 'aggressive driving' looks to me more like chaotic pedestrians making the streets unsafe to drive on. Unless they had a permit to use the streets (we can assume they didn't since there was clearly no traffic control), then this is also a crime, albeit typically a minor one. If someone steps out into traffic in front of you and you slam on the breaks, is that 'aggression' or 'hostility'?

 

One of the prosecutors in his closing arguments stated that he did. Isn't it against the law for a prosecutor to tell obvious lies in court? And no, I did not see him accelerating into protestors. Who had the right of way there anyway? His light was green. Just looked like he was hoping they would let him through.

 

Looking at prior comments he had made on social media about purposely instigating protestors so he could kill one doesn’t fit well into this defense

 

And if the prosecution was willing to lie about him running a red light, inquiring minds must wonder what else they lied about. Apparently, there are no consequences for it. The Prosecution in the Rittenhouse trial did the same thing.

 

Not the video from Texan that I saw.

 

You do realize the prosecutor stated that it was based on social media posts, not the actual events. Geez.

If the prosecutor did lie, then the defense would have objected to that statement, and the defense would have won that objection. So, you need to ask yourself, why didn't the defense object to the closing statement?

 

Apparently you've never driven in a city or town where there are pedestrians walking in the street. Last year at the Ektin John concert in Charlotte they were all over the street. Just one of dozens or hundreds of times. In my opinion he was driving aggressively, and by the reaction of the crowd, something got their attention, maybe the horn blaring, but his behavior seemed aggressive. Personally I would avoid this situation, but he seemed to be seeking it. No one was attacking cars.
I agree 100% on not blocking traffic, protesters seem to get arrogant that way, that's why I would avoid the area.
I think he was angry and *pushed* things.

 

Apparently they were incompetent.

 

Utter bollocks.
That's a weapon pointing down towards the guys own feet since the weapon is along side of it's own body. Is this is all you got, than it is really pathetic and you know it.

 

The person you quoted is correct and the evidence demonstrates it

 

Neat ability! You can see movement in a still photograph. You should see a doctor about that as it could be a sign of a brain injury which might be curable as long as you don't ignore it