Protestor gunned down in Austin - Daniel Perry trial

[seeker_two]

Abbott needs to do one better. He needs to withhold DPS from patrolling Austin until the DA and ADAs are fired or resigned. He also needs to order the AG and Rangers to investigate the DA for connections to blm, antifa, and Soros.

 

[BBL]

Abbott needs to do one better. He needs to withhold DPS from patrolling Austin until the DA and ADAs are fired or resigned. He also needs to order the AG and Rangers to investigate the DA for connections to blm, antifa, and Soros.

Doesn't have the balls for that.

 

[ArmyDub]

if they allowed his social media comments they should also allow the ak boy’s interview before the riot

 

[BBL]

if they allowed his social media comments they should also allow the ak boy’s interview before the riot

Are you CRAZY? You want equality? You want accountability? You want fairness? You want evidence not being withheld illegally?
Sorry, bud, you're in the wrong country.

 

[smittyb]

Now I'm seeing an article on Fox News claiming that DA Garza is Soros backed and ordered investigators to hide exculpatory evidence. Apparently the case was considered closed and no charges were filed by the previous DA. Along comes Garza and reopens the case.

Soros-backed DA behind Army veteran's murder conviction accused of witness tampering, withholding evidence

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, R., criticized Soros-backed DA Jose Garza for bringing charges against an Army veteran who allegedly acted in self-defense against a BLM rioter.

www.foxnews.com

Yup, we already know that Garza is a communist criminal who ordered evidence withheld, ordered a police officer to lie under oath etc. Typical leftist moves, nothing new. Move along.
When Abbott called for the pardon, it made national news. I wonder how much pressure the pardon committee is under now and how many of them fear for their lives. Imagine blms raping your whole family and burning down your house. I wonder if that's why the jury took 15 hours to deliberate on Sgt. Perry's verdict.

No evidence was knowingly withheld from the criminal trial. That would be grounds for an immediate mistrial.
Any prosecutor can choose what if any evidence they submit to a grand jury. That’s why we get the commonly used phrase “you can indict a ham sandwich”.
That Doesn’t make it right, but there is a HIGE difference. A difference that is being purposely misrepresented to the public by some media.

 

[General Zod]

No evidence was knowingly withheld from the criminal trial. That would be grounds for an immediate mistrial.

And yet that's something that happens often. Prosecutorial misconduct is much, much more common that you'd like to believe.

 

[smittyb]

I am well aware that I will most likely be called all sorts of unsavory names, associated with who knows what groups, and personally attacked for stating my opinion that goes against the groupthink around here, but it won’t kill ya to hear an opposing opinion now and then. Well, not most of you anyhow.

This case represents a real conundrum for me.
On the one hand I FULLY support a protesters right to march down the public street while carrying a loaded rifle. Even if that person is protesting in support of a cause I don’t personally agree with. Just because he was supporting a BLM protest, most of you have immediately found him guilty. Would you be so quick to do so if he would have been in a pro 2A protest and the shooter was a BLM or Antifa member?
On the other hand, I obviously fully support the use of force in self defense if one believes they are in danger, no matter the circumstances.
Ultimately, none of us can know if Foster was pointing his weapon at Perry, or what thoughts were going through Perry’s mind just before he pulled the trigger.

It’s a complicated messy situation that has already cost one person their life, and could possibly ruin an innocent persons.

 

[glenbo]

I don't know for sure, but wasn't there video of the dirtbag pointing his AK at SGT Perry?

 

[General Zod]

Ultimately, none of us can know if Foster was pointing his weapon at Perry, or what thoughts were going through Perry’s mind just before he pulled the trigger.

You know, other than the fact that all the witnesses told the police that night that Foster raised his rifle toward Perry before the shots were fired. The same witnesses who later, in court, claimed Foster didn't raise his rifle. At some point they were lying.

Also, if you want to take the whole "brave iconoclast bucking the 'groupthink' opinion" persona, don't presume to tell the rest of us what we think and why we see things the way we do. Assigning opinions to those you disagree with just so you can argue against those opinions is dishonest. BLM/Antifa had very little to do with the facts of the shooting. According to video and according to witness statements that night, it was a clean self defense shooting. And according to the detective who investigated the shooting, evidence was suppressed.

 

[General Zod]

I don't know for sure, but wasn't there video of the dirtbag pointing his AK at SGT Perry?

That's what was reported at the time, yep.

 

[smittyb]

I don't know for sure, but wasn't there video of the dirtbag pointing his AK at SGT Perry?

No. Not pointing at.

 

[smittyb]

That's what was reported at the time, yep.

“Reported” okay

 

[smittyb]

AFTER Perry drove into the crowd, Foster approached carrying his rifle at low ready.
Did Perry feel in danger for his life? I DONT KNOW.

 

[General Zod]

“Reported” okay

And here's what's reported currently. By a notably left-leaning Austin paper.

Daniel Perry's lawyers seek new trial, say excluded evidence may have proved self-defense

Lawyers for Daniel Perry requested a new trial in the death of Austin protester Garrett Foster, saying crucial evidence was excluded from trial.

www.statesman.com

There's a hell of a lot of information that was excluded from the trial. But you go on buying the Soros-backed DA's line, nobody can take that from you.

 

[General Zod]

AFTER Perry drove into the crowd, Foster approached carrying his rifle at low ready.

Oh, so you were there? You witnessed it?

 

[smittyb]

And here's what's reported currently. By a notably left-leaning Austin paper.

Daniel Perry's lawyers seek new trial, say excluded evidence may have proved self-defense

Lawyers for Daniel Perry requested a new trial in the death of Austin protester Garrett Foster, saying crucial evidence was excluded from trial.

www.statesman.com

There's a hell of a lot of information that was excluded from the trial. But you go on buying the Soros-backed DA's line, nobody can take that from you.

IDGAF who the DA is or who he is supported by.
I was following this story closely when it happened.
Multiple eyewitness reports from people AT THE SCENE claimed Foster never pointed his rifle AT Perry.

 

[smittyb]

Oh, so you were there? You witnessed it?

Again according to everyone who was actually at the scene, unlike you or me.

 

[General Zod]

IDGAF who the DA is or who he is supported by.
I was following this story closely when it happened.
Multiple eyewitness reports from people AT THE SCENE claimed Foster never pointed his rifle AT Perry.

And you interviewed these witnesses? Because the guy who did interview them says differently.

 

[General Zod]

Again according to everyone who was actually at the scene, unlike you or me.

Well, depending on when they were asked and by who...

 

[smittyb]

And you interviewed these witnesses? Because the guy who did interview them says differently.

No, just like you didn’t.
Yes, one guy says different. Does that make it so? Cause a lot of people that were there say different.

Well, depending on when they were asked and by who...

Possibly so. We don’t know for certain, do we?