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

No, it won't be reversed on appeal. Texas District Attorneys are not required to provide exculpatory evidence to Grand Juries.

The jury listened to the case and determined that the defendant was guilty and looking at the evidence which shows that he was looking for a fight, I tend to agree with them. Texas law is different. Read up before jumping to conclusions.

That being said, the governor is going to likely pardon him for political reasons so all he will have worry about now is the civil suit.

 

Yeah, the BLM terrorists would have drug him from his car and beat him to death. No harm, since he wouldn't have been killed with a gun. Right?

 

This needs to be fast tracked to the Supreme Court. Disgusting world in which you cannot defend yourself when someone points an AK-47 at you and pounds on your vehicle basically threatening your life.

He was an Uber driver on his off time. Defending this communist DA is treasonous to this country.

 

"Prosecutors said Perry had plenty of other choices, including driving away before he fired his revolver. They highlighted a series of social media posts and Facebook messages in which made statements that they said indicated his state of mind, such as might “kill a few people on my way to work. They are rioting outside my apartment complex.”

A friend responded, “Can you legally do so?” Perry replied, “If they attack me or try to pull me out of my car then yes.”"

"The jury deliberated 17 hours over two days before reaching the verdict Friday afternoon after an eight-day trial with dozens of witnesses. Perry didn't testify during the trial.

Foster’s brother, Ryan Foster, said on Saturday that he didn’t think Perry should be pardoned. “This was clearly premeditated,” Ryan Foster told the Statesman. “He (Perry) thought a lot about it and planned on doing it...He wanted to kill a protester and saw somebody exercising their second amendment right.” "

Yep, pretty sure the jury got it right.

 

Here is a guy named Reginal Denny stopped by protestors. They did not have a gun. He did not have a gun. Sure turned out great for him, eh what?

 

You plan on going to Texas and start shooting everyone who carries a rifle? Which People's Republic are you from?

 

Funny how liberals defending anyone with a gun, let alone an AK-47 assault rifle.

 

Your three speculations, if you do not realize, are on the fantastical side, and not very believable, based simply on your personal set ideas about judges, jurors, and residents of Austin, TX. @Alwayssa 's recitation of facts, as reported in Stars & Stripes, is not only much more soundly based, but seems more reasonable, as well. Namely, that the driver had "aggressively" driven into this group of protestors. Unfortunately, she is dispensing the details in a piecemeal, and not always well-focused manner (no offense meant, Alwayssa). For instance, in a reply to one of my posts, you'd said that the BLM protester had not pointed his rifle at the car, but had fired 5, .357 rounds. Where? Up in the air? Surely you must realize that this is a more salient detail, than the names of the streets.

 

Strawman fallacy. As if shooting someone who stops your car while carrying a rifle and points that rifle at you in a threatening manner is somehow the same as shooting "everyone" walking down the street with a rifle.

 

The 2nd amendment afficionados can argue about this one until they are blue in the face, neither outcome is favorable to the gun proponents' stance. Either one of the two men involved in this incident could claim to have been afraid of their lives, acting in self defense. The truth is that them having guns caused this whole incident. If neither of them had a gun, one of them would still be alive and the other one would not be in jail. So much for the tired old argument that guns make people safer. In this case, they did exactly the opposite. The same is true in many cases where a gun at home is found by a child, who then hurt themselves or others. Guns do not make people safer, that's a myth peddled by the NRA and the pro-gun crowd.

 

Why do cops carry one?

 

It's Austin. That's the same as a San Francisco Grand jury.

 

The guy that attacked Perry was a rioter, who attacked someone who didn't pose a threat.

 

republicans say it's ok to walk about with an ar-15 in your hands I thought

as I said in another thread, your biggest threat if you do is getting shot by a cop or a good guy with a gun

moral of the story... don't walk around in public with an ar-15 in your hands

 

Perry would have had to run someone down with his car to drive away.

 

But, it isn't ok to riot and attack people with your AR15

 

I think you've confused my post and someone else's. I didn't say anything about the .357 firing 5 times. The BLM protester had a rifle, the .357 was Perry's, right?

 

based on the Jury verdict, doesn't sound like the victim did that

 

Dan Patrick is on the Dan Bongino show as I type explaining the lead detective on the case has file a complaint against the DA for withhold evidence and witness tampering in the case. He said the detective had complied a 150 slide presentation of the evidence and that the DA made him exclude and withhold exculpatory evidence, half the slides, in the presentation to the grand jury, in the evidence turn over to the defense and in court. The detective is stating he considers himself a witness in the case and the DA instructing him to do this was witness tampering. That will be part of the pardon request.

 

yes, I too think it's risk to walk the streets with a gun in hand, conceal it... just like one's privates, no one wants to see it in public

 

was there a video showing that? other witnesses?

 

1) You should have specified that you had meant police investigator, not anyone in the prosecutor's office.

2) According to this answer to that tweet, exculpatory evidence is NOT REQUIRED to be presented to a GRAND JURY, which is what he is apparently talking about, not the trial. If there was some information, not presented to the Grand Jury, there was nothing stopping the defense team, from calling him, as a witness. In fact, if he was the lead police investigator, I cannot imagine that the prosecutor wouldn't have called him, at the actual trial, thereby giving defense, a chance to cross-examine him.

Frankly, your citing this, screams of someone way too overly disposed to believing in any allegation that supports a biased belief in government conspiracy, at every turn.

<Snip>
Capital G Geek
@CapitalGGeek
·
10h
Replying to
@RyanAFournier
This affidavit is from the grand jury testimony, where exculpatory evidence doesn't have to be presented. Is there anything showing this cop was directed to conceal evidence during the actual trial?

 

carrying a weapon and brandishing a weapon are two different things. this is already well established in law.

 

"I Am Working As Swiftly As Texas Law Allows": Gov. Abbott Responds To Soros DA Sandbagging In Self-Defense Shooting

'The Texas Constitution limits the Governor's pardon authority...'

'The DA intentionally mislead the Grand Jury which is a violation of federal law. Texas needs to pass HB2640 requiring DA's to present exculpatory evidence in Grand jury proceedings.'

Yes.

'A jury in Travis County, Texas found Army Sgt. Daniel Perry, 33, guilty of murder on Friday, nearly three years after he shot a BLM protester who had a history of threatening people with rifles, after a Soros-funded DA withheld nearly 100 pages of exculpatory evidence from the grand jury according to the lead investigator in the case.'

'Perry told police he shot in self-defense, which both the Austin police department and the lead detective in the case agreed with - concluding it was justifiable homicide.'

THEN AN EVIL SOROS-PUKE STEPPED IN


Literally pointed at him.

'Then, Soros' Puke 'DA Jose Garza stepped in and instructed lead detective David Fugitt "to remove exculpatory information that I had intended to present to the grand jury during my testimony."'

'This detective believes the Soros' Puke 'DA acted criminally.'

I AGREE



THEY NEED TO INDICT THIS SOROS PUKE PROSECUTOR WITH OBSTRUCTION AND WITNESS TAMPERING.

 

not defending it, in fact I said he should not of had a AK-47 in his hands while protesting - he would be alive today had he not