Protestor gunned down in Austin - Daniel Perry trial

[General Zod]

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

You sure are acting like you do...

And by the way, you should care who the DA is and who backed him, because the Austin DA is refusing to prosecute a lot of crimes, including violent crimes, but sank his teeth into this case after the APD had decided it was a clean self-defense shooting. And now that there's allegations of evidence suppression and testimony changing, your willingness to buy the prosecution's line as the unvarnished truth is...interesting, to say the least.

And how do I know all of this? Because I've been following the case closely since it happened. Like you claim to have.

 

[pronstar]

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.

Without even reading the article (I did read it), the pics alone show the paper’s bias.

 

[smittyb]

You sure are acting like you do...

And by the way, you should care who the DA is and who backed him, because the Austin DA is refusing to prosecute a lot of crimes, including violent crimes, but sank his teeth into this case after the APD had decided it was a clean self-defense shooting. And now that there's allegations of evidence suppression and testimony changing, your willingness to buy the prosecution's line as the unvarnished truth is...interesting, to say the least.

And how do I know all of this? Because I've been following the case closely since it happened. Like you claim to have.

No, I clearly stated I did not know who was in the right, and never will. Only one person knows that at this point.

I am not buying ANYTHING the prosecution is trying to sell.
“Unvarnished truth”. That’s laughable.

I also clearly stated I HAVE NOT been following the case. I followed the story when it happened. Before there ever was a case.

As I said, I knew independent thought what be met with resistance.

 

[SARGE67]

My son and his 10-year-old daughter (my granddaughter) were approached by a guy wielding a knife in a parking lot, about 20 feet away. My son calmly used his left arm to move his daughter behind him as he used his right hand to pull his Glock .45 cal from behind him, likes to carry that way. He pointed it at the ground while staring at the guy, all in a matter of seconds. The other guy then hauled buns, all three slept in their own beds that night, nobody hurt and my granddaughter witnessed a lesson.

 

[General Zod]

As I said, I knew independent thought what be met with resistance.

Independent thought isn't. Lecturing without the facts is.

You are ignoring facts that have been presented by the defense, you are ignoring information presented by the detective who investigated the case, you are ignoring the clear political bias of the DA's office, and you are ignoring any other information that you don't agree with. Those of us who have been following this story don't agree with you.

 

[jrbfishn]

No. Not pointing at.

At least once I saw one that had the rifle butt to his shoulder and pointed in the car and walk toward the front window. While people are trying to beat on the car and get him out. He was not at low ready. 7.62x39 at that range would have no problem going through the car door at that distance
Looked like a violent car jacking to me. The muzzle would not have to clear the window to be lethal. And at that distance, hip shooting is faster and just as vood as taking aim.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

 

[General Zod]

At least once I saw one that had the rifle butt to his shoulder and pointed in the car and walk toward the front window. While people are trying to beat on the car and get him out.
Looked like a violent car jacking to me.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Yeah, but it was "mostly peaceful"...

 

[Maverick44]

Multiple eyewitness reports from people AT THE SCENE claimed Foster never pointed his rifle AT Perry.

You mean the same people who were in a mob with Foster, beating on Perry's car, and who viewed Foster as a political ally? Do you honestly consider their eyewitness reports to be worth a damn? Do you really think that they would be honest and admit that the shooting was justified when it was one of their own who got shot?

 

[ArmyDub]

on the night of the shooting, witnesses stated that the ak was pointed at the car

the DA was able to get these same witnesses to change their stories so he could file charges

 

[cycleguy2300]

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.

I too fully support marching down streets with loaded arms of any sort, no "buts". However, the marchers had not sought ad to my knowledge were not permitted except tacitly, to be the sole users of the road. I.e. it was an open road and they were preventing the lawful use of that public road for other users by blocking it.

I have VERY limited ability to justify why a group should be able to blockade a road, depriving other lawful users from using the road as intended for their orderly and lawful travel.

Had this been an impromptu MAGA/2A rally blocking Congress Ave and some rainbow haired ANTIFA tranny lawfully turned down the street and a bro with a beard and Hawaiian shirt ran up to the car with a SOPMOD M14 and got shot by the lib, I would still say it was self-defense and be pleased if they got a pardon.

Perry was lawfully driving on a public roadway designated for motor vehicle use.
A group was unlawfully preventing the lawful use of that road way.
One member of the group unlawfully preventing the use of the roadway presented a rifle to the person lawfully operating the vehicle on the roadway designated for such use.
The person operating the vehicle lawfully, believed the person participating in the unlawful use of the road was an immediate deadly threat and the person unlawfully threatened deadly force while unlawfully preventing the use of the public road was killed. SELF-DEFENCE ALL DAY LONG.

Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

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.

How pointed at you does a rifle need to be to be an immediate deadly threat?

I'll give you a hint: Not very.

Lots of things go into it including the nature of the group the aggressor was in, the extreme disadvantage The victim was in trying to fight from a vehicle etc

Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

You sure are acting like you do...

And by the way, you should care who the DA is and who backed him, because the Austin DA is refusing to prosecute a lot of crimes, including violent crimes, but sank his teeth into this case after the APD had decided it was a clean self-defense shooting. And now that there's allegations of evidence suppression and testimony changing, your willingness to buy the prosecution's line as the unvarnished truth is...interesting, to say the least.

And how do I know all of this? Because I've been following the case closely since it happened. Like you claim to have.

How many rioters who where charged with directly injuring police were prosecuted?

Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk

 

[General Zod]

How many rioters who where charged with directly injuring police were prosecuted?

Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk

In Austin? None. The DA charged several police officers, though. Because that DA's office is beyond reproach...

 

[toddnjoyce]

on the night of the shooting, witnesses stated that the ak was pointed at the car

the DA was able to get these same witnesses to change their stories so he could file charges

IBM presents you make the call

 

[gll]

No, I clearly stated I did not know who was in the right, and never will. Only one person knows that at this point.

I am not buying ANYTHING the prosecution is trying to sell.
“Unvarnished truth”. That’s laughable.

I also clearly stated I HAVE NOT been following the case. I followed the story when it happened. Before there ever was a case.

As I said, I knew independent thought what be met with resistance.

If no one can ever know for sure, then the verdict should be innocent for lack of evidence...

 

[seeker_two]

Because that DA's office is beyond reproach...

And this is why immunity for prosecutors and judges should be eliminated....

 

[gll]

At least once I saw one that had the rifle butt to his shoulder and pointed in the car and walk toward the front window. While people are trying to beat on the car and get him out. He was not at low ready. 7.62x39 at that range would have no problem going through the car door at that distance
Looked like a violent car jacking to me. The muzzle would not have to clear the window to be lethal. And at that distance, hip shooting is faster and just as vood as taking aim.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Low ready standing would look a lot like aimed to a person sitting in a car...

I would also say that low ready is a combat carry, as opposed to shoulder slung which is a non-combat carry. Foster was ready for combat, with no apparent threat to him, except for what he created.

 

[smittyb]

I too fully support marching down streets with loaded arms of any sort, no "buts". However, the marchers had not sought ad to my knowledge were not permitted except tacitly, to be the sole users of the road. I.e. it was an open road and they were preventing the lawful use of that public road for other users by blocking it.

I have VERY limited ability to justify why a group should be able to blockade a road, depriving other lawful users from using the road as intended for their orderly and lawful travel.

Had this been an impromptu MAGA/2A rally blocking Congress Ave and some rainbow haired ANTIFA tranny lawfully turned down the street and a bro with a beard and Hawaiian shirt ran up to the car with a SOPMOD M14 and got shot by the lib, I would still say it was self-defense and be pleased if they got a pardon.

Perry was lawfully driving on a public roadway designated for motor vehicle use.
A group was unlawfully preventing the lawful use of that road way.
One member of the group unlawfully preventing the use of the roadway presented a rifle to the person lawfully operating the vehicle on the roadway designated for such use.
The person operating the vehicle lawfully, believed the person participating in the unlawful use of the road was an immediate deadly threat and the person unlawfully threatened deadly force while unlawfully preventing the use of the public road was killed. SELF-DEFENCE ALL DAY LONG.

Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk

Very well said.
This is the sort of honest conversation I personally like to see.

 

[jrbfishn]

I too fully support marching down streets with loaded arms of any sort, no "buts". However, the marchers had not sought ad to my knowledge were not permitted except tacitly, to be the sole users of the road. I.e. it was an open road and they were preventing the lawful use of that public road for other users by blocking it.

I have VERY limited ability to justify why a group should be able to blockade a road, depriving other lawful users from using the road as intended for their orderly and lawful travel.

Had this been an impromptu MAGA/2A rally blocking Congress Ave and some rainbow haired ANTIFA tranny lawfully turned down the street and a bro with a beard and Hawaiian shirt ran up to the car with a SOPMOD M14 and got shot by the lib, I would still say it was self-defense and be pleased if they got a pardon.

Perry was lawfully driving on a public roadway designated for motor vehicle use.
A group was unlawfully preventing the lawful use of that road way.
One member of the group unlawfully preventing the use of the roadway presented a rifle to the person lawfully operating the vehicle on the roadway designated for such use.
The person operating the vehicle lawfully, believed the person participating in the unlawful use of the road was an immediate deadly threat and the person unlawfully threatened deadly force while unlawfully preventing the use of the public road was killed. SELF-DEFENCE ALL DAY LONG.

Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk

You put it waaay better than me.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Sentenced to 25 years.