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

The truth is that the jury said so, or at least the prsecution's theory of the events that happened. That is why they found him guilty.

 

This particular prosecutor is supported by Soros. That's how he was elected. This particular prosecutor does not know right from wrong, and in punishing a man for self defense, the prosecutor acted on behalf of Satan.

 

WOW you mean he had to accelerate to move after he came to a complete stop? Like stopping at a stop and then proceeding on your way? That absolute murderous fi-end

You don't have to open fire on me to be a legal target for self defense. You wave that gun barrel at me, you begin to bring it up into a stance as is shown on video, you make yourself a legal target.

 

Guns weren't the original contributing factor here; it was a nationwide campaign by politicians, media, academia, and other race hustlers to stir up hatred along racial lines. That led to these 2 men approaching each other with hatred in their hearts.

 

No, it depends on more. I've seen the blurry pic. I can't tell if he is pointing his AK47 at the sergeant, but the unnatural way his elbow is cooked, appears to indicate a readiness to wield the weapon, if he already isn't in fact doing so.

It also depends on what the victim (I will temporarily refer to him as victim in deference to our jury system, although I highly suspect he wasn't, except insofar as both men were victims of powerful race hustlers) did to provoke.

Remember, Rittenhouse was accused of provocation for merely being present with a weapon. So I would expect that there would be a massive effort to identify a single thing this AK47 wielder did to provoke the situation. I'm betting his behavior was in stark contrast to the AR15 wielding Rittenhouse.

 

Point is, it was bad driving and bad driving etiquette. Unless you have the right of way, you can get into serious trouble. And plenty of hit and runs do that sort of thing. That too is against the law.

The protesters had a right to protest. Nothing was burning. No building on fire. No stores are being vandalized. They were walking on the street, which was legal to do. Foster was legally carrying. His firearm was pointing down. And if you fire on someone who is legally carrying, I will guarantee you the police will arrest your arse because you provoked the attack when you shold not.

 

Whatever makes you happy. Use words like 'mob', 'riot', 'attack' to justify the killing. The bottom line is that the jury didn't buy those talking points, so your hero is in prison.

Not all killers are insane, some are just full of rage.

It is pointed at the ground, and a still photo obviously can't show any transition.

 

Yes, bad etiquette. For certain. Yes, if he'd actually struck someone he could have been in serious trouble. But he didn't strike anyone, no one was in danger of being struck. They were INSULTED and so mobbed his car preventing his egress and striking it. That's not legal behavior. That's not even a proper response to bad etiquette wherein no one was harmed, which is the finger.

They did have a right to protest. They did not have a right to mob his car for the insult of his poor etiquette and prevent his egress. Foster did not have the right to begin to bring his weapon into battery or to participate in that mob attack as he did.

The police released him after he turned himself in a few blocks down and it was the sheriffs opinion it was a justified shooting. So there's that.
The a witness felt tampered with and signed an affidavit to that effect in that he offered 156 slides to show the GJ but the prosecutor demanded he remove 2/3rds of them which just so happened to be the potentially exculpatory frames. Go figure that. Total coincidence huh?

 

Mobbing someone's car and attacking them is not a legal form of protest ffs.
The jury didn't like those talking points because the judge made a serious error and allowed in evidence that had no bearing on the incident in question and only served to cause bias without being relevant.
As stated already.

And some simply act in self defense when surrounded by a mob banging on their car with heavy objects while screaming and preventing your escape.

The stills are part of videos from more than one angle. You HAVE seen the video right?
As to showing transition: They can indeed show you moving your arm in the same way you do when you're going from low ready to a shooting stance. Which is what they show.

 

Bottom line: If you are going to use deadly force, you better be in actual fear for your life or of serious bodily injury, an that did not fly in this case In a State, like Texas, where anyone can carry guns openly, its no longer enough to say "oh, but he had a gun". If you are going to pass laws for open carry, then you better get used to seeing people carry guns, and not get triggered like this fella.

Clearly saying "but he moved his arm" didn't fly either. Self defense cases are going to get tricky when both parties are carrying openly. Accidents and misunderstandings will also become common.

 

He was in actual fear of his life. He was literally surrounded by a mob, which includes the dead man, banging on his hood with heavy objects and preventing him from escaping them. Foster began to bring his gun into battery and was properly shot.

 

That is not a riot. The protesters, some 20 to 30, were walking down the street. Or are you in the habit of not watching where you are going when you drive? If that is the case, I have some DPS officers who would just love to meet you when you do that, write the citations, and give you the tickets that you deserve.

Again, Perry said he was texting while driving. That too is against the law. And it contributed to how he reacted. It was not like he was stopped and they rushed at him. It was him, while driving, who went into them. That is reckless endangerment of pedestrians since they were on one side of the two-way street. He went directly into them, knowingly or unknownlingly.

What psych evals? There are no psych evals for anyone on the civilian side unless one is going into law enforcement. Texas stopped doing that. For concealed carry and a member of the armed services, psych evals are not necessary. Nowadays, they are no longer required for anyone, period. In fact, to open-carry handguns, you do not need a permit anymore because Texas has done away with that. For long guns in Texas, it is pretty much open as long as it is not displayed in a menacing manner. And when Perry did join, he took that assessment test, passed, got in, went to basic, and has been in there a while and is not an E3 or E4. But no psych evals to know of.

That appeal is going to fail. Text messages and social media posts. If you are citing 403.3, what does having a certificate have to do with anything here? But this site from a criminal defense attorney states otherwise that social media posts, texts from a personal cell phone, etc, can be used in a criminal proceeding if it has to do directly with the crime. And if he was making disparaging posts about BLM on his social media, then that would be related to the crime as to prove the motive for the intent of the act. And any appeal would lose, even in Texas.

Any type of evidence or rules of evidence is found here. And if the social media posts were challenged, a good defense attorney would attempt that at the pre-trial motion to exclude the evidence, wouldn't they? So, either the defense did and lost, or they did not because they knew it was valid evidence obtained by the police through a search warrant. In either case, it won't win on appeal. Texas Board of Pardons and Parole has to recommend the pardon to Abbott. Abbott cannot, since 1935, do this on his own. Texas has what is called a "weak governorship" mostly because of the Civil War and a few other past historical events.

 

You cannot claim self defense if you committed the agressive action first. Hence his problem. And that aggressive action was his driving into or towards the crowd who was walking calmly down the street.

 

Was there any information revealed on what the AK47 wielder was doing to provoke? One can't incite violence while open carrying and automatically claim self defense.

These protests were fraught with violence. It was literally a Nazi Brownshirt mentality in the streets. You didn't even have to be against the protest to be targeted. Anyone who was simply going about their business was a potential target by these mobs who were enraged that these people considered their business as higher than their cause. I witnessed dozens of cars surrounded/blocked on YouTube/media during 2020. Many were clear-cut cases of kidnapping. But what really made the whole thing fascist was how many of our politicians were not only inspiring the behavior, but refusing to do anything about the violence committed against ordinary citizens across the nation.

So are you one of those people telling me that Rittenhouse provoked by merely showing up, but this guy can show up and participate in violent protests that box ordinary citizens in traffic and threaten them like viscious animals, THEN actually participate in one of these box-in events, saying who knows what while open carrying, and that's NOT provocation?

 

When a group of 20-30 people goes from peacefully walking, and they charge up and surround a vehicle and start attacking it and the driver inside they have in that moment with that decision turned from a group of peaceful protestors to a riotous mob.
Again: Poor etiquette yes. But no one was harmed, none of them were even in the path of the vehicle until they mobbed him.
You don't get to attack someone for poor etiquette.

Texting while driving is a ticketing offense. It is not a let him be attacked by a mob of people offense.

Name the persons whom he was charged with assaulting with his vehicle.

Perry, a soldier, would've had a form of psych eval as part of his fitness exams that the poster I was talking to has offered as the solution to all issues in the past.
I'm referring to something specific between myself and another poster. If you don't get the reference, maybe don't reply to it?

Yes, I know the rules of evidence I'm a licensed attorney in Texas.
Rule 403. Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, or Other Reasons The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1448...pdated-with-amendments-effective-612020-f.pdf

Its up to the judge, and this may shock you but judges can be incorrect when they make rulings on admitting evidence and those rulings can constitute harmful error. As in this case.
It very much can win on appeal.
You can obtain all sorts of evidence by a warrant ffs, that doesn't mean it passes 403 or numerous other rules of evidence to be admitted in a court of law.

Board of Pardons: Who do you think puts people on the board of pardons? How do you think that works? Tell the class.

 

He didn't drive into the crowd. He turned right. No one was in his path when he did so, regardless if they were in the crosswalk on the otherside of the street.
They then ran up to surround him and stopped his progress.

 

That's pointing at the ground

 

The Austin PD repeatedly told the guy with the AK47 not to point it, or they themselves would have shot him. The PD didn't make a case here. The DA did. And the PD folks disagree with that. You're trying to blame the victim for having a dude raise an assault weapon at him. It seems you believe in the use of these weapons now, no? How is dude in the car supposed to know where shots came from? Did you expect the uber drive to just die? Because he was texting? Because dude with the AK should be able to just murder this guy on the street? Is that your contention here?

 

Yes. The problem is not the guns, but the mentality where people think they can open fire and claim self defense in almost any situation.

 

Looks very possible both armed men may have acted irresponsibly. I'm coming into the argument knowing nothing. I've seen a blurry pic, and some after-the-shooting video in which I have no idea who is who. I need to know exactly how the vehicle was maneuvered, and witness testimony alone is going to be tough to believe based on what I've seen on video. They were clearly in an excited state of mind, to say the least. I also need to know what the victim was saying as he approached and remained at the door. If you are open carrying, there aren't a lot of situations that justify charging, and blocking in another person who is sitting, and cannot move. If open carrying, simply shouting expletives is not justified (unless some sort of trauma was just endured or witnessed), even without cornering a person. This AK47 wielder appears to have acted totally irresponsibly for someone open carrying.

 

You refuse to look at the stills and video if you believe he didn't make an aggressive move to raise to a firing position to kill this driver. Driver did absolutely nothing wrong driving or killing the idiot walking the street with a gun. Pretty obvious your just playing partisan and don't want to acknowledge the dead guys aggression, nor the protesting mob.

 

I've watched the two videos that have been circulating multiple times and still don't see any evidence of him running a red light. He waited for the light to change, then turned right. Midway through the turn he was blocked by protesters, so he stopped. That is when the whole thing happened. I'm also curious, did he get out of the car?

 

The rifle appears to be pointing down at the ground to me.

 

They have 100% confirmed Foster stood at Perry's driver side door with his weapon raised. Some say the weapon was pointed at the driver and some say it wasn't. Do you wait until he turns it on you and shoots or do you respond and save your life? The answer seems common sense simple to me.

And the lead detective on the case testified for the defense in the trial. That speaks volumes for Perry's innocence.

 

From what i gather in the Stars and Stripes article, and from his own interview on why he was carrying, he pretty much did not do anything to provoke. The Austin PD stated he was legally carrying and determined, through their investigation, that Perry instigated the whole affair when he drove into the crowd. And from the video that Texan provided, I did not see any rioting whatsoever. I saw them coming down the street. In fact, there were quite a few people on the street that night most of whom were protesting, some observing, and some just wanted to be there to see what was happening. Foster, from CNN, was known in the community, for carrying an AK47 anytime he protested. He was big advocate of the 2a, and was a big advocate in the police accountability that BLM, at in Texas, was protesting about the George Floyd incident.

The video that Texan posted had Perry's vehicle stopped at the intersection of the street and Congress Avenue, then turned right. From the vantage point of the video, even I could tell that a group of people was walking down the street. So, again, why did Perry do what he did? According to Perry, he was texting and driving at that time. So, when he drove towards the crowd, the crowd natuarally reacted. You would too if you were on the street walking, even with a group of people, and a car did that. Does that make you a mob then by your own argument? You be the judge.