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

It's the video on the left. He made a right turn and was confronted by people in the street. I think he honked his horn and protesters ran toward the vehicle from behind and surrounded it.

 

So the defense lawyer was worthless.

 

I only quickly read the OP's article. It did not focus on any particulars in the trial, just trying to insert politics into a jury verdict. It was the Stars and Stripes article I posted that gave the most details of the trial.

That would be some. I suspect there were innocent people as well in the shops surrounding that street and Congress Avenue in downtown Austin, or near Downtown Austin. In addition, there is probably video coverage that would cooberate the testimony the protesters were giving.

Security cameras facing outward onto the street are sometimes the great equalizer when verifying witness statements. I think the police did an excellent job canvasing the area to very every detail, both the defendant, the victim, the witnesses, and so forth. According to the Stars and Stripes, the defendant posted that day about the demonstrations occuring that day.

According to the Police, the Austin Police, he was legally carrying. Under Texas Statute, any long gun, which does include AK47s, can be openly carried as long as it is not "displayed in a threatening manner."

I do. I respect the jury's decision, even with KR or the infamous George Zimmerman. We can disagree with the verdict, but none of us was there to actually listen to all testimony. Which is why the Stars and Stripes had the most information in which was presented to the jury. All the conservative articles I have read don't do that,. They just focus on the decision and then make assumptions and insert political propoganda to boot.

Under Texas law, you cannot provoke someone else and then try to claim self-defense. Texas does have a castle doctrine, which includes no duty to retreat in your own home, place of business,

I don't think this has anything to do with being "pro-gun" or "anti-gun." Conservatives are trying to make this "pro-gun" in every way possible. And I think you are being influenced in your thought process a little based on all those conservative articles IMHO. And that gets back to Texas law in which a person can legally open carry a long gun, including AK47s, is not "displayed in a threatening manner. My personal opinion is the Army Sergeant was highly influenced by conservative media, did not know Texas law as well as he thought he did, and thus acted recklessly and is now paying the price for those reckless decisions. But the irony, the true irony, is the pro gun groups in the past have made this possible. Both were legally carrying. Nothing is mentioned about that in the conservative articles because it goes against their political platform and idealogy. And the jury listened, and applied the Texas law appropriately.

I do. I think the jury believed the prosecution more than they believed the defense. Keep in mind, the defendant had two charges, one was a homicide and the other was aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. They were convicted on the murder charge, which means, they didn't believe his self-defense claim. I don't know if he took the stand or not. But the jury did acquit him on the aggravated assault charge though.

I am reposting the link below. Check your filters or your catche in your system. Clear the history on your search and other tricks.

https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2023-04-07/sergeant guilty-verdict-protester-shooting-9737472.html#:~:text=AUSTIN, Texas — A jury on,the city, Perry's attorney confirmed.

https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2023-04-07/sergeant guilty-verdict-protester-shooting-9737472.html

No bias here. But the first link, it shows what both Perry, the defendant, and the prosecution argued. And from what was provided by the police saying he was legally carrying, and so forth, I think Perry overreacted and did not know Texas law.

 

And because he was texting and driving, a motor vehicle violation, it probably why hd did not see them until it was too late, and why he was driving aggressively. His mistakes led to this, and nothing else.

 

Just because Perry says so does not make it so.

 

And crooked posters?

 

The Stars and Stripes said it was 6 seconds from the moment he turned on Congress Avenue and he fired while texting and driving. You can get ticketed, and in some cases, your car impounded, if you are caught texting and driving in Texas, unless you are law enforcement.

 

They should both be arrested under the Patriot Act.

 

Perry told police in his official statement that he was texting while driving, which means he wasn't awaye of his surroundings. It's hard enough to keep aware of your surrounding if you are talking on a cell phone, even on speaker, and drive. It is far worse if one is texting while driving.

Which I presume, he did not see the crowd while he was texting until they were right on top of them. If he wasn't texting, he would have seen the crowd to begin with. And that is why he was "driving aggressively" or recklessly IMO.

 

That is based on personal choice and I respect your choice. My objective in this thread is to state the law of what is and what is not acceptable, specifically what is and what is not acceptable a person is open carrying.

Even watch "audit the audit" videos. There are pro-gun people who do this and people call the police when they see someone openly carrying. I don't blame them, but the person who is carrying defends himself but does not realize what other people think, And from what I have watched, they quite frankly don't care.

 

Nope, don't care. That said, I conceal carry. I'm glad the Sgt. had a gun, and was able to kill the punk.

A nation of simps and transvestites simply cannot survive for long.

Whose skirt would you hide behind if China invaded, lol??

 

and my objective is to show the risks of carrying a ar-15 type gun in your hands in public.... legal yes, risky.... also yes

there will always be those willing to take the risk, that do not care, like the guy in this article, but at least they should know the risks

 

My article was from NBC. It seemed like a very neutral article to me. What part if is was partisan?

You suspect?? I haven't see any mention of this phantom evidence you suspect exists.

Okay great. But were there any security cameras corroborating the witness statements in this case?

Therein lies the question. Was the gun being carried in a threatening manner. According to this article, the gunshot wounds indicate that the deceased was in a tactical stance at the time he was shot.

Juries get it wrong all the time. And I am concerned that the jury was biased against this guy because he shot a BLM protester.

The evidence of provocation is weak. What a shocker that the protesters would testify against the guy who shot one of their own.

It sure as hell should not.

Yes. But every broken clock is right twice a day.

What conservative articles? You mean the article I posted from NBC (you know, the one in the OP)? That is a conservative article? The only conceivably conservative article I have posted is the one I just posted here AFTER you accused me of being influenced by conservative articles.

In my honest opinion you just want to see this man go to jail for shooting a BLM protester because "BLM GOOD!" Liberals (myself included) are typically not shy about being skeptical of jury decisions when the circumstances warrant skepticism. But sadly it would seem that most liberals are abandoning that here because "BLM GOOD!"

"Displayed in a threatening manner" is pretty subjective. Imagine you are in a car surrounded by protesters who are illegally blocking the street. All the sudden one protester approaches you with an AK47. That's pretty threatening. I think a reasonable person would fear for his or her safety in that situation.

This is entirely possible. But I think there's more than a reasonable doubt that this is not what happened. And I'm sure you understand that nobody should be convicted of murder if there is any reasonable doubt he or she is guilty. The star witnesses seem to be people who were protesting with the deceased. That should have weighed heavily against their credibility.

Yes I agree that this is all because of the shitty gun laws in Texas. Open carry is just dumb. People are going to reasonably fear for their safety at the sight of an AK47.

Blue jurors aren't likely to acquit red defendants.

A possibility. But not a certainty beyond reasonable doubt.

 

Thanks for posting that. Interesting.
He was driving aggressively for the conditions, something got the attention of a lot of people and caused them to run in that direction. Would be interesting to know why they *alerted*, maybe the car horn? One guy was running fast, but as soon as shots fired out, he was running faster the other way.
Seems like there were a few shots a few seconds after the first volley. I wonder which set of shots was the one that killed the victim, and if the gun the defendant had was the only one fired. There were 5 shots fired soon after the car turned right and hit his brakes. Seems like he hit someone, maybe a scream right then. 5 shots, people scramble, defendant drives away, sounds like 4 more shots.
I think the defendant was irritated by the protesting. He drove into the middle of it. Way out of his way to be there. Happened to have a loaded pistol ready. He drove a little too aggressively for a crowd like that and either bumped into someone or almost hit someone, or saw the guy with the rifle, because he suddenly comes to a complete stop, and someone screamed, causing attention of others around. If stopped because of the guy with the rifle, he was looking for a fight. If he hit someone or almost, beeping the horn, causing the scream and attention, then the rifle guy turns this attention toward the car and points the rifle in the car's direction, the defendant would have had time to get weapon, point it, and fire it. Possibly a surprise type of event for both and in a second, both lives changed forever.

 

Can't figure out how they convicted this guy. What Joe Horn did was much more questionable.

 

was this what he was texting? if they had texts and facebook messages like this, sure that did not help his case

“Might Have to Kill a Few People”

https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2023-04-07/might-have-to-kill-a-few-people/

"And other texts that suggest Daniel Perry intended to commit murder at a Black Lives Matter demonstration"

"In addition, Perry speculated about how he might get away with such a killing – by claiming self-defense, as he is now doing. Prosecutors presented a Facebook Messenger chat between Perry and a friend, Michael Holcomb, which occurred two weeks before he shot Foster. In it, Perry argued that shooting protesters was legal if it was in self-defense. Holcomb, who was called to the stand Wednesday afternoon, seemed to try to talk Perry down. "Aren't you a CDL holder too?" he asked, referring to the men's licenses to carry concealed handguns. "We went through the same training ... Shooting after creating an event where you have to shoot, is not a good shoot.""

 

That video shows that he accelerated and deliberately drove into the protestors and then it is disclosed that he was texting at the time and had previously threatened to shoot a protestor. Guilty is the correct verdict

 

The whole trial was not whether he had a gun or not. Or whether he should have had a gun or not. He was texting while driving in Downtown Austin. That is also against the law. But because of that mistake, and because he did not realize his surroundings, he turned on Congress Avenue not realizing a protest with a group of people werre coming this way. Had he not been texting and driving, he may have had a better chance in a hung jury or even acquittal. But he didn't. And 6 seconds is not a lot of time from turning onto Congress Ave and firing his firearm.

Bear in mind, the AF veteran also had a right to protect himself. And he was legally carrying with the police statement in their report.

 

We don't know what he was texting. May have been texting his girlfriend, his army buddies, and so forth. But we simply don't know. But I do think that was from his social media posts that day, and set his mindset for that night, aka motive. Remember, it took a year from the incident to the indictment and more than a year from the indictment to trial. The trial lasted two weeks. Another interesting note is it took the jury 15 hours of deliberations. So, I believe the jury did their due diligence, looked at all the evidence, and eventually decided to go with the prosecution, not the defense.

That text is from KR on his fateful night.

 

You suspect?? I haven't see any mention of this phantom evidence you suspect exists. [/QUOTE]
It was coming from my personal experience. Remember, what police do when there is a homicide or possible homicide is that they gather as much evidence as possible. If you have not been to downtown Austin on Congress Avenue, I think you would not get the full picture here. Every downtown is unique, IMO, and Austin is no different. But given the trial was 2 weeks, I can surely bet the police did their due dilligence before charging him, the DA bringing the evidnce to the grand jury, and the grand jury indicting him.

Yes, but they are probably not available to the public on the internet. But was available to police though. Police routinely check for video cameras, or security cameras of where the crime scene occurred. And having been to downtown Austin, there are plenty that point to the street for protection and so forth.

There is no evidence that he did. Again, the video that Texan posted shows Perry's vehicle turning onto Congress Avenue and accelerating. If he was texting and driving, I can see how he did not see them. If he wasn't texting and driving, again based on Daniel Perry own statement, then he would have seen them down the street a few hudred yards away going into his direction. His choice would have been either to allow them to pass before going onto Congress Avenue, or stop and observe, not accelerate. I think that was the most damaging piece of evidence, along with his social media posts.

They do, but usually not based on the evidence they were presented. Ever hear of the innocense project?

Not the video that Texan posted. Not the social media posts he made that day. The case was definitely circumstantial, but a majority of homicide cases are. Even Alex Murdough's homicide case was circumstantial. Do you think the jury got it wrong there too?

But conservatives are sure as hell trying to make that the case though, thinking it will give them an edge. It won't.

Except this has more to deal with personal responsibility than being "pro gun." The usual talking points by the conservatives are in full display here, including some of your statements about BLM.

Fox News, Newsmaxx, and a few others. They include the "George Soros line" and that Perry was "clearly" acting in self defense. National news articles are notorious of leaving out the details. Local news, and the Stars and Stripes, is where we get bit and pieces of what was actually presented. And if Law and Crime or Court TV aired this trial, then we have that to watch, all 10 days of it.

A lot of people are getting the details wrong, or quite simply, ignored. Personal responsibility is what I look at. If you do wrong, admit to it. Don't lie, don't try to cover it up, don't try to tell yourself you "did the right thing" and so forth.

Yes it is, but it is Texas law just as open carry with handguns is Texas law or conceal carry. I am trying not to muck this up into getting into the gun politics of the day. But it is ironic though, in my opinion.

If there is reasonable doubt, the jury would have believed in such. That is why they did not convict on the aggravated assault charge, which was the second charge based on the evidence in the link below. And that evidence dealt exclusively with the aggravated assault charge.

https://context-cdn.washingtonpost....024/note/8e4e8804-3867-453f-8edd-746e84d77b99.

But the topic here is not gun laws of what they should or should not be, is it. It is about the conviction, why the jury did not believe in the defense, and went beyond a reasonable doubt to convict.

That is a bunch of BS and you know it.

In your opinion yes. But to the 12 jurors, no after 15 hours of deliberations.

 

An AK 47 makes a distinctive sound. Those shots came from another handgun, possibly in the crowd but maybe not. Again, overreaction by a driver who was texting while driving in downtown at night.

 

Horrific, hopefully his appeal is already in the works

 

Any appeal will be based on technicalities in the state appellate system, all the way up to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. His rights under the US Constitution was not violated. Now, since he has his conviction, and assuming no pardon is imminent, he will be dishonorably discharged under Article 99 of the USMC.

 

It was an AK-47, according to the OP. I had also read the article & not noticed any inconsistency, but I am not going to go back to look through it, because of your post. I assume the info in the OP is accurate, though I suppose, had I read "semi automatic rifle," I might have assumed, it was referring to the AK-47. If this detail is of concern to you, and you re-read the article, finding no mention of an AK-47, let me know, as I would then go back, to corroborate your observation. At this point, though, I am going to assume that you probably just overlooked the mentioning of it.

 

The article lust mentions a semi-automatic rifle.
The person who started the thread added in AK47.