Leftist RIOTS FEARED As TX Gov Perry Plans PARDON Of Daniel Perry After Killing BLM Extremist
- Thread starter TigerRagRob
- Start date
From what I have read about this story, hopefully the governor can pardon this guy. The left-winger love to criminalize victims.
Guy shouldn't be pardoned, but it doesn't surprise me the smooth brain contingent thinks he should be.
is this you?
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
www.youtube.com
A jury convicted him and many witnesses confirmed that he sped up when he reached the crowd of protestors. He also made social media posts saying "I may have to kill a few people on my way to work. They are rioting outside my apartment complex"
Now because Tucker and Kyle Rittenhouse are making a stink about him being convicted for killing someone they don't like, Abbott is willing to overturn the jury's decision. Sickening you would applaud that.
How would you feel if blue states overturned the convictions of people who kill Republicans?
Yes, no doxing plz tyis this you?
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
I should not wade into this mess as I believe accurate information helps determine accurate outcomes.
I saw only one piece of information from where I don't even know .
That was the person killed was pointing an AK47 at the man in the car.
That in itself lends me heavily to self defense as I grew up being trained by my parents that pointing a gun at someone confirmed the intent to shoot that person
I have always gone by that mantra although I would hesitate to shoot a person to kill them unless I felt that was the only option
And in that moment of stress most people will chose the shott to kill option.
So will wait and see what comes out of this and threats of riots should not determine the choice the governor makes.
If people riot I consider that as a separate event endangering the public and people and will have no sympathy for the rioters.
Same as the anarchists disrupting and inciting the crowd in the Tennessee State House to violence by interfering with the session.
So really I would ask for well informed cool heads review this matter and make a logical decison.
It doesn't matter what opinion you heard on FoxNews Peepaw - the jury had ALL the information when they decided the verdict, but apparently that doesn't matter anymore unless Maria Bartiromo agrees with it, eyeroll.
They weren't rioting and since we know you have racist tendencies, seems like you'd care a little bit that he killed an ex-military white guy.
Just fyi and I think you know already these are the type people your talking to. I could see that being dpic easily...
IIRC the victim wasn't pointing the gun at him, but it was strewn across his chest.
The perpetrator went on social media, said he intended to go over to the riots and potentially shoot someone. That denotes premeditation, and should disqualify him from a pardon. You jamokes would be screaming like banshees if the shoe was on the other foot.
I will say that, IF he was being threatened by the crowd (someone mentioned a weapon being pointed at him) then speeding up is a valid response to get out of danger. IF that is why he did it. When threatened while in the car, forget the 55 grain or 115 grain solutions - use the 3500 lb one you are sitting in. And do NOT stop in the middle of a crowd that is getting agitated.
To run them off because he didn't want them there isn't a valid reason.
There was a case where a guy in a Land Rover had the AUDACITY to find himself in the middle of a group wanting to street race motorcycles and he hit one of them accidently. It got ugly and I believe someone tried to open the back door near his young child. He had to run over a few of them to escape.
But I do not know the situation for the Texas case. I presume he ran them over?
ETA - read up on it. Scratch a bunch of that up there in this case (your car is still your best weapon if you are attacked while in it though). The convicted guy said that the other guy pointed a weapon at him and he shot in self defense:
"There are conflicting accounts as to whether Foster pointed his weapon at Perry or Perry made the first move. What’s undisputed, however, is that Perry fired five shots from his .357 revolver through his car window, killing Foster. Perry fled the scene but later called police to report the shooting, saying he acted in self-defense."
(From CNN.com, searched on Abbott Texas Shooting)
Sounds like the whole thing is a little murky. Smarter move might be to order a re-trial (I think they can do that). ETAA - Appeals process?
Also - reason 417 that open carry and/or carrying a rifle in the street (short of the apocalypse) is A REALLY BAD IDEA!!!!!!!!
Last edited:
Again, the jury heard all the evidence from the prosecution and the defense. If we no longer trust our judicial system and governors can pardon anyone they feel like based on their ideological leanings, we're getting into dangerous territory.
Last edited:
They didnt hear all the evidence. Garza hid exculpatory evidence from the jury and only presented edited text and not the whole text to provide context. Thats what they tried to do to Kyle also. Remember if it wasnt for the independent journalist that filmed the event they would have convicted Kyle. They even edited evidence and presented it as fact in court. He did point the AK at the driver and you even see the arm position he was lds and not just carrying it across his chest. Im a former US Army Infantryman I think I know a lot about this. Another person shot at the car with a 9mm. The Gov hiding evidence is a tyrannical Gov at that point.
I have no idea what you're talking about. The witnesses said the car threateningly and intentionally drove into the crowd and his social media showed he had intention as well.
"In court, prosecutors brought up Facebook messages that Perry sent prior to Foster’s killing.
In one message, Perry wrote: “No protesters go near me or my car” and “I might go to Dallas to shoot looters,” the Austin television news outlet KTBC reported.
Another message that Perry sent on 31 May 2020 said: “I might have to kill a few people on my way to work they are rioting outside my apartment complex.” A few days later, Perry commented on a Facebook post of a video titled Protesters Looters Get Shot San Antonio Texas, writing, “glad someone finally did something”.
During the trial, Austin police detective William Bursley testified about evidence found on Perry’s cellphone. Part of the evidence included online searches for “protest tonight”, “protesters in Seattle gets shot”, “riot shootouts” and “protests in Dallas live”.
“This is an age-old story about a man who couldn’t keep his anger under control,” said prosecutor Guillermo Gonzalez, according to the Austin American-Statesman. “It’s not about police, and it’s not about protest marchers."
US army sergeant found guilty of murdering BLM protester in Austin
Texas governor moves to pardon Daniel Perry, who was convicted of shooting Garrett Foster during rally in 2020
Prosecutor being charged with suppressing evidence of innocence. Prosecutor should be looking for truth and the correct Verdict as opposed to injecting politics and scalp hunting.
Governor should respect the jury's decision and not overturn a case due to Tucker's pressure when the case would have been reviewed anyway. This is a gross abuse of power.
"In this case, a jury of twelve listened to testimony for nearly two weeks, upending their lives to painstakingly evaluate the evidence and arguments presented by both the State and the Defense," Garza said in a statement emailed to NPR.
He also noted that the jurors deliberated for over 15 hours before reaching the unanimous decision that Perry was guilty of murder — a decision Abbott now wants to overturn.
Even without Abbott's actions, Garza said, the case would be reviewed by state and federal courts to ensure proper legal procedures were followed."
Very fair point. And I agree that the info in the public realm (news reports, YouTube, other BS) is not as reliable as what the jury would have heard.
I’m assuming there is something more behind this but in truth I don’t know. I’m too busy learning how a Prius’ hybrid system works. (Basically I’m just a big nerd).
We do have an appeals process for this very situation though. Perhaps they should try that.
I am not sure I am living in the right universe as I like law and order and things to make sense
There’s the children’s story about the five blind Indian men touching the elephant and all coming to a different conclusion
I find myself wondering how what I can clearly see as on thing other people can come up with a completely different idea
Of course in today’s world almost everyone is selling an agenda
Again I just cannot fathom how far from my moral values some people are
It really makes it hard to have a conversation when one side wants to discuss things with a reasonable calm conversation and the other side starts with riots threats incivility hate racism baiting disparagement lawlessness defund police etc
If you are a conservative the FBI IRS DOJ and government are being suppress your ideas or voice with threats of government power crushing you as an individual
Then you look at the MSM creating a narrative that had to come from a pack of monkeys
Like I say the world is a strange place
These days the elephant would go to HR and get the Indians fired.
The ability to see things from different viewpoints is a rare gift and can probably be a blessing and a curse. I like to think I am able to do that. It leads to understanding the other side's arguments more and helps you realize that they probably aren't pure evil (as extremists on both sides would have you think), but at the same time can lead to the inability to form an opinion at all.
IF the prosecutor surpressed evidence (and for the record I have no idea WTF Growls is getting that) then we do indeed have an issue.
Big damn IF though.
My problem with the conviction was based on one snippet I saw somewhere and it might be bad information
The guy who was in the car reportedly had an AK47 pointed it him so if that is true then I am old school when someone points its meant to kill so I would be shooting in self defense
I do think based some other stuff again from who knows where and how accurate the shooter put himself in harms way which is not the crime but a really bad idea
Not really informed enough to decide but the issue of the riots in 2020 of like 575 riots with violent people on streets with tools of death makes me tske the side of the person NOT in the riot or as the rioters describe a peaceful demonstration
Here ya go courtesy of one of the only publications that still bothers to do investigative reporting.
Lead Detective in Daniel Perry Case: Soros-Funded DA Removed 100 Pages of Evidence from Jury - DA's Actions Went from Highly Unethical to Criminal Conduct | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft
Armed BLM-Antifa protester Garrett Foster hours before being fatally shot A Texas soldier was found guilty of murder on Friday after Soros-backed District Attorney Jose Garza sought murder charges for an act of self defense during the 2020 George Floyd riots.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Not gonna read your conspiratorial drivel but a district judge reviewed this evidence and dismissed it. I will also repeat again that all the witnesses say Foster did not point his gun at Perry and after thoroughly reviewing the evidence for two days, the jury found him guilty. Why don't you just admit that you don't care if he's guilty, you just want him freed because you approve of him killing a BLM protestor? That's how much you hate them and we all know it.Here ya go courtesy of one of the only publications that still bothers to do investigative reporting.
Lead Detective in Daniel Perry Case: Soros-Funded DA Removed 100 Pages of Evidence from Jury - DA's Actions Went from Highly Unethical to Criminal Conduct | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft
Armed BLM-Antifa protester Garrett Foster hours before being fatally shot A Texas soldier was found guilty of murder on Friday after Soros-backed District Attorney Jose Garza sought murder charges for an act of self defense during the 2020 George Floyd riots.
Honestly, I can see the hesitation. The fact that someone at the riot/protest/whatever was even CARRYING an AK-47 and then got shot is going to make me default to not guilty, all things being equal.
THAT BEING SAID - All things may not be equal. I do not have all of the evidence that the jury saw. And I might look into it once I fully understand Hybrid drive systems, how to model a curved thin object like a holster paddle in SolidWorks, which USS Enterprise is best, how zone coverage works in flag football, and how stealth technology works.
(My YouTube playlist is weird.....)
Little hint - if you plan to go somewhere but a) are not military/LEO, b) if it's not your home or the home of a friend or loved one (ie somewhere where life is in danger) and c) you feel like you need to carry a slung AK or AR....
Go someplace else. Go have a beer. Or a cup of coffee. See a movie. Hit the gym.
Just a top tip from an old guy.
TGP is very legit. Look at the content instead of the name.
I personally want the right of self defense to be preserved in our nation, but each case has to be judged FAIRLY on its merits. We have rogue prosecutors and DA's that are letting people just walk with no charges in multiple cases while trying to throw the book at citizens that was forced to defend themselves. If exculpatory evidence is being withheld then thats a problem. You and WAP have closed minds and do not want to read any material that contradicts your worldview. I am willing to read material that contradicts my viewpoint to see if it will change my mind so yes I have a broader more informative and enlightened perspective than you two nimrods. LOL!!
Wait, you're going to blame the victim for openly carrying a long gun in a state that proudly flaunts it's worship of gun culture and wants to make it as easy as possible to obtain one? People on the Right do it all the time but all of a sudden it's bad if a BLM protestor carries one? I agree with you in part because I believe permit-less open carry is a ridiculous law but now that they've crossed the Rubicon, it's hard to blame the guy that got murdered for doing what Abbott promotes.
Got it, you don't trust the judicial system if you don't get the outcome you want. The prosecutor, the judge, the jury and the district judge that reviewed the evidence you call exculpatory are all deep state, amirite?
Blame him completely? No.
Did it contribute? In reality it most likely did. To most people, open carrying an AK makes you a threat from the start. He may not meet the legal definition, but if I'm somewhere and some dude walks in carrying an AK/AR/etc - I'm gonna wonder what he's up to. And start figuring out an escape route for my family.
99.9% of people feel the same way, whether they admit it or not.
Was this a BLM protest? Were others there so armed?
There was a movement a few years ago where a group was protesting (?) and all were armed with long guns. Wonder if this was tied to that? It lost steam when three of them managed to shoot themselves somehow. One guy tried to blame the AR, but despite claiming to be a military veteran he didn't understand how the thing works (top tip - ARs are closed bolt systems, not open bolt. They don't fire when the bolt goes forward). The accident was bad but the 'explanation' was actually hilarious.
Sometimes you just gotta say "Look, we fvcked up. Sorry."
For the record is is very believable that a military veteran would not know how an AR15 works, so I'm not accusing the guy of Stolen Valor or anything.
NOTE - this is different than the groups that were armed protecting their homes during the first riots. I will have to see if I can find the video, but one of them had a sweet Kriss Vector (you don't see many of those).
Last edited:
Did they plant far left blm members on the jury wearing maga hats to make it seem fair?
You tell me but the verdict was unanimous, and it would be highly unlikely that all of them would be BLM since both sides are involved in jury selection.
certain members of congress have called for ignoring supreme court rulings they don't like. i assume that's ok though due to their...ideological leanings.
You really don't have a clue how this works do you? Good lord. Both sides pick a jury and have the ability to object and remove jurors they don't like. For what you are suggesting to have occured, the defendants lawyer would have had to have been trying to select jurors that would hurt his client.
Hmm...
"After that line of questioning, the detective and Perry re-enacted what Perry says happened the moments before and after the shooting.
We hear the detective ask whether [Foster’s] gun was aimed at Perry.
“I believe he was going to aim it at me,” said Perry, “I didn’t want to give him a chance to aim at me, you know.”
What’s with the selective all caps of some words in the title? Makes me feel like I’m reading a trashy tabloid like the Sun or National Enquirer rather than a proper newspaper article.
Similar threads
