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

ifs/buts.

maybe don’t point your rifle at people, yes? That’s more like it.

 

The DA didn't convict him, a Jury of his peers convicted him.

If a jury convicted him, something doesn't smell right here. A Texas jury convicted him, so their is something missing from the article.

 

The DA chose to bring the case to court knowing the laws didn’t qualify this as murder but as self defense

 

By Texas Statute, the Texas Office of Pardons and Paroles must recommend the pardon to the Governor. Governor Abbott rarely pardons people, even when there is clear evidence that the in guilty verdict was questionable. He generally gives clemency more often than pardons.

 

Must have been piss poor jury selection.

 

There is no evidence that the AF Veteran, who had the AK 47, was pointing at the Army Sergeant. The facts, from the Star and Stripes, state that he stopped where the demonstrators were walking. One of them was legally carrying an AK 47 At that time, Texas had already approved open-carry long guns, He drove aggressively towards the crowd, AF Veteran reacted, and then he turned from his current street onto Congress while firing 5 shots from his 357 magnums. So, it does not look like he was in fear for his life-based Texas Statutes.

 

No it was not.

 

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/c...dict/269-b554d558-6f17-4607-86af-dbcc9d246a83

There were lots of people who testified from both side of the isle, and also CSI.

If he was found guilty, there was a reason. I don't think this is the cut and dry case that the right wing media is making it. He was indicted by a grand jury, and then tried by a jury of his peers (IN TEXAS), so there is something thats not being reported here that made a jury in TEXAS find him guilty

 

His car was surrounded before firing and had an AK pointed at him… those are the facts

 

If that were the case, his lawyer would have easily argued that

First there was a TEXAS grand jury that heard the evidence and decided there was enough evidence to bring it to trial, and then there was a jury of his peers in TEXAS who found him guilty. There is something missing from this story that the courts and the jury saw/heard that made him be found guilty

 

Thanks for the post.

Ive been trying to find more facts on this, can you post any links you have to it that show this ?

 

An expert also found he was not speeding.

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/aus...as-he-made-turn-into-crowd-of-protesters/amp/

the demonstrators that are so called “witnesses” are doing nothing but a buddy testimony or the expert wouldn’t have found there stories to be false.

 

Or the jury were a bunch of morons

 

Yes it was

 

Well that detail would make all the difference (had Perry first driven "aggressively" into the crowd). That really was a terrible OP article-- I'm surprised that this was from NBC News, though I don't know if I should be.

That said, if there were no injuries from Perry's aggressive driving, my sense is that the now deceased person's reaction, had not been appropriate to the provocation-- from a common sense perspective. From a legal view, OTOH, as I've read that the stand your ground law in Texas is one of the strongest in the country, I would guess that this overreaction by the protester with the AK, was probably legal. Even as the provocateur, the driver must still have had the right to defend himself, but the jury must have found that this provocation, made Perry ultimately responsible for whatever transpired out of what he had initiated; the same as if he had broken into someone's home, resulting in a gunfight. This is a perfect example of why Stand Your Ground laws, are moronic. This was well-demonstrated, in the Trevon Martin case, in Florida. Clearly, these sorts of incidents, are bound to be the result; taking more lives, than the law saves.

This also is a reminder of how ill-advised it is, to try to judge a jury's verdict, without knowing the specifics, of the case.

 

the only article I found that contained any information with some detail is Stars and Stripes. Not even the Austin American Statesman or the Texas Tribune had as much information on this trial as Stars and Stripes.

LInk.

From the article, "Perry, 35, was assigned to Fort Hood and had been driving the 70 miles south to Austin to work a second job with a rideshare company when he encountered protesters in the city’s downtown at about 9:51 p.m. on July 25, 2020. Garrett Foster, an Air Force veteran, was among the protesters and legally carrying an AK-47-type assault rifle, according to the Austin Police Department. Perry told police that he saw Foster point the weapon at him, so he fired his own gun five times, killing the 28-year-old Foster.

"Six seconds elapsed between the time that Perry turned his car onto Congress Avenue and he fired the .357 Magnum handgun that he kept between the driver’s seat and the center console of his car, the evidence showed during the trial.

"Guillermo Gonzalez, a Travis County prosecutor, told jurors in his opening statements last week that the evidence would “show the defendant intentionally drove into the protesters.”

“It was Perry who engaged in unlawful use of force,” Gonzalez said.

Evidence included videos of Perry describing the incident to Austin police officers — first, when he called 911 and met with officers immediately after the shooting, and about an hour later when he gave a voluntary statement at police headquarters. He also voluntarily provided his cellphone and car to be searched.

"Prosecutors presented jurors with Perry’s social media postings and conversations that he had with others expressing negative opinions about the social justice protests that occurred in the summer of 2020."

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/04/07/daniel-perry-austin-protest-garrett-foster/

https://www.statesman.com/story/new...er-garrett-foster-austin-protest/70090982007/

 

Texas does not have a stand-your-ground doctrine in 2020, or one that people think of about Florida's Stand Your Ground. We have the Castle Doctrine, which means you can defend yourself in your home, your own car, or your place of business. Standard self-defense will apply in all other locations. But the OP's article never gave details originally. Took me a while, but Stars and Stripes had the most information from the trial. We also have open carry with long guns as long as it is not in a threatening manner. What probably got Perry was tape evidence, his own phone records, his social media accounts, other witnesses who were there, and so forth.

 

Juries will disagree with you.

 

His car was not surrounded. He stopped in front of the crowd on the street He then drove into the crowd, then turned off onto Congress Avenue while he was firing.

 

But I never said he was speeding. I said specifically he was turning onto Congress Avenue, a two-way street, in Downtown Austin, and was probably a few blocks away from the Capitol. Anyway, as he was turning, he fired the fatal shots, which will tell any reasonable person that his life was not in immediate danger per state statute.

 

His life is in danger of someone is pointing a gun at him. The expert also found he was inches from his window before being shot

 

I read elsewhere that he was on call as a uber driver at the time of the incident. Not that his business there is at all relevant.

Would these witnesses happen to be the protesters who were likely friends of the deceased?

How is this even remotely relevant?

Maybe the other demonstrators were peaceful, but you really cannot say with an honest face that a man armed with an AK is a peaceful protester, even if his weapon is not loaded. I'm not saying the deceased intended to kill anyone. Who knows? But he clearly intended to intimidate at the very least. And that is violence, even if it is legal to carry in Texas.

I don't have a lot of faith in the jury system. Innocent people are convicted all the time. Travis county is full of liberals. I wouldn't be surprised if the jurors convicted this man because he shot a BLM protester.

Full disclosure: I'm a liberal. But I don't think this guy should have been charged because it was reasonable for him to believe his life was in danger. The deceased was incredibly stupid for walking around with an AK 47 on the streets.

I'm not a pro gun advocate. I think guns are dumb. But I'm a realist. We're never going to get rid of guns. The best we can hope to do is impose better regulations on the sale of guns. Either way, just because I would prefer that we live in a world without guns does not mean I'm going to assume the worst of a guy who used a gun to defend himself.

Furthermore, I have very little confidence in the jury's decision based on the evidence that has been made public. I usually will defer to a jury decision but there's just too much that could have gone wrong here.

Your link does not work. I can understand why he would continue to fire while fleeing because his life was still in danger. Also, you are assuming that the protester was nonthreatening at the time of the incident. Your bias is getting the better of you.

 

I can only speculate as to why, but my speculation is that Austin, Texas has a high enough percentage of SJW nutjobs that a jury there can be fully comprised of them. Either that, or the Judge catered to the prosecution at jury selection who was then able to build a jury full of people who think anyone killed at a BLM protest must necessarily have been murdered by a 'white supremacist' and the facts, thus, don't matter.

I think if Perry is able to get his case before an appellate court outside Austin, this will be reversed. How possible that is to do, I've no clue.

edit: or this- I just happened across an affidavit from the lead investigator on the case who was ordered to omit from his testimony evidense that would have helped Perry.

Ryan Fournier on Twitter: "“I firmly believe the District Attorney's Office, acting under the authority of Jose P. Garza, tampered with me as a witness.” https://t.co/FBctPyPx6V" / Twitter

 

After reading your Stars and Stripes link, it sounds like the jury made a good decision. If Perry was driving and confronted, assuming he is right handed, he would have to be more beside the target to fire, or was firing wildly left handed. The story for the prosecution sounds more reasonable to occur than the defense story.
This is the problem of having everyone armed all the time. Small arguments can turn deadly quickly and easily.

 

Apparently it was missing from the testimony too. The lead investigator of the case is claiming in an affidavit that he omitted evidence that would have helped Perry, on the orders of the DA.

Ryan Fournier on Twitter: "“I firmly believe the District Attorney's Office, acting under the authority of Jose P. Garza, tampered with me as a witness.” https://t.co/FBctPyPx6V" / Twitter