Daniel Perry Gets 25 Year Sentence in Shooting of BLM Protester at 2020 Riots
“Perry repeatedly fired his handgun at Foster after Foster approached the car with his rifle.”
Army sergeant Daniel Perry has been handed a 25 year sentence in the shooting of Garret Foster in Austin, Texas in the summer of 2020, at the height of the riots.
Foster approached Perry’s car carrying a rifle, which Perry claimed was aimed at him. He said that he shot Foster in self-defense. Read more background from Professor Jacobson here.
The Texas Tribune reports:
Daniel Perry is sentenced to 25 years for killing an Austin protester. Gov. Greg Abbott has pledged to pardon him.
A Texas state district judge on Wednesday sentenced Daniel Perry to 25 years in prison for shooting to death a man protesting police brutality. Gov. Greg Abbott has pledged to pardon the former U.S. Army sergeant for the crime.
Perry, 36, shot and killed U.S. Air Force veteran Garrett Foster from his car in downtown Austin in July 2020, two months after a Minneapolis police officer killed George Floyd. Foster, a 28-year-old white man legally carrying an AK-47, was protesting against police violence and racial injustice when Perry drove into the crowd. Perry repeatedly fired his handgun at Foster after Foster approached the car with his rifle. Perry, who is also white, has said Foster raised his rifle toward him; witnesses said he didn’t.
Perry’s murder trial was a difficult and distinctively Texas case that forced jurors to weigh self-defense claims and gun rights. In April, jurors deliberated for about 17 hours after listening to weeks of evidence before convicting Perry of murder.
At a hearing Tuesday before state District Judge Cliff Brown over Perry’s sentence, attorneys for Perry and the state of Texas argued over the relevance of recently revealed racist and threatening comments Perry made on social media and in text messages. And they debated whether developmental disabilities and post-traumatic stress disorder suggested by Perry’s hired psychologist should warrant leniency.
The Post Millennial describes the scene on the night of the shooting:
Perry, who worked as an Uber driver at the time, encountered an armed BLM group that had taken over the streets of Austin on July 25, 2020. Perry turned onto a street with his vehicle, where he was surrounded.
“I made a wrong turn, a guy pointed a freakin weapon at me and I panicked. I don’t know what to do. I’m just an Uber driver. I made a wrong turn; I’ve never had to shoot someone before. They started shooting back at me, and I got out of the area,” Perry told a 911 operator that night.
Perry’s attorney is already planning to appeal.
Defense Attorney Doug O’Connell says the fight for Daniel Perry is not over and there is a plan to appeal. @fox7austin pic.twitter.com/o2foy6X2Tq
— Amanda Ruiz (@AmandaRuizFOX7) May 10, 2023
Texas Governor Greg Abbott has requested a pardon recommendation from the Texas Board of Pardons.
I am working as swiftly as Texas law allows regarding the pardon of Sgt. Perry. pic.twitter.com/HydwdzneMU
— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) April 8, 2023
Featured image via YouTube.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Is anyone surprised by this? Hope everyone is enjoying our Soviet style “justice” system.
This is exactly why the Governor has the ability to Pardon. For cases like this.
Governors in Texas do not have that ability. They can only recommend it to the board which does.
That said, Andrew Branca, who does legal commentary here on LI, and who is an expert in self-defense law (and actually, literally, wrote the book on it), thinks this conviction was legally defensible. The jury saw the evidence. Perry’s behavior and previous statements brought his motives into question, and not a single eye witness testified that Foster had pointed his weapon at Perry.
Are you honestly telling us that you believe that the “witnesses” from that day were telling the truth in court? They had compelling (to them) reasons to lie – sympathy with the dead protester, and fiery-hot, spittle-filled hatred towards the system they believe Daniel Perry and the court represented. Lying in this kind of situation is a badge of honor to these people.
Oh, and one more consideration: even if they were caught in the lie in a court of law, they had (with good reason) to believe that a progressive Austin DA would look the other way.
The law in deep blue cities like Austin is corrupt to the core and is on their side, as proven in the recent finding in the NYC case concerning President Trump. They simply know that.
The biggest reason they had to lie — they were involved in the false imprisonment and assault with a deadly weapon against Perry. A just result would have been everyone who mobbed the car tried for felony murder.
The jury heard no evidence that Foster was threatening Perry with his weapon, and carrying isn’t illegal. Do you want it to be? Foster had a right to be carrying, just as Rittenhouse did. Unless Foster was an actual threat to Perry, it’s not self defense.
FWIW, there was also video evidence, which Branca referenced in his article here on LI, that lead to him concluding that the conviction was defensible.
I feel a lot of sympathy with this man and have the same feelings he has about these protesters, but when I looked at the photo where he was being threatened by the man with the rifle, it does NOT show the guy pointing the rifle at him. It is the law that you can carry a gun but once you point it at someone, you are breaking the law. Technically, the man with the rifle did not threaten him and he had no right to shoot first. I know that is hard to digest but without that rule, anyone carrying a gun could be shot on sight by someone who was “Triggered” or felt threatened. Branca made that clear and as much as I hated it, it looked that way to me also. His social media accounts did not help his case either. If I had to describe a racist I could use his rants and be pretty accurate.
Not a single eye witness wasn’t a fellow protestor.
…fellow participant in the crimes of illegal detention, menacing, and assault.
Branca is wrong.
The governor appoints the members of the board, and he can remove members of the board.
While what Andrew wrote is undoubtably true, his analysis is based on the premises off an intack legal foundation. Those foundations have been destroyed in many cities. Those rioter in Austin were supported and encouraged by local government to break the laws and trample on the rights of other citizens. Similarly in New York, when people are permitted by the local government to violently assault other citizens they no longer retain the legal foundation to prosecute those who attempt to stop them. It is no longer a justice system, it a persecution system.
Ann, have you ever had an AK-47 thrust in your face, by someone angry and deranged enough at that moment to actually pull the trigger? I have, and figuratively speaking, it’s one of those “life flashing before your eyes” moments. I don’t question that Andrew Branca is correct on the law. He knows the law, and I don’t, but I believe that I know what was running through this man’s mind at that moment.
This is a travesty, and I fully support Governor Abbott’s position.
“in your face” not proven in court
“angry and deranged” not proven in court
You keep saying “In your face” when the photo and video show no such thing. The man had an AK but did not thrust it in his face. Legally that is a huge difference. Branca knows the law and once you find yourself in a courtroom, the law is all you have.
The problem with saying, “the witnesses had every reason to lie”, is that you have to have proof that they were lying. That’s the job of the defense. Also, according to Branca, the whole narrative about him being surrounded was not true. One can disagree with the verdict, while also admitting that it was not an irrational verdict.
It’s probably a typographical confusion, what with white Daniel Perry and Penny both in the news at once for the same thing.
Anyone named Daniel Pelly should be very careful.
This is Austin now
When I first moved here in the 70’s, there were rides in full view in pick up trucks
How freaking long does this pardon take?
Says so in the article.
Gov. Abbott: “I am working as swiftly as Texas law allows regarding the pardon of Sgt. Perry.”
The TX governor can only act on recommendation from Board of Pardons and Paroles. He has asked the Board to make a recommendation so that he can issue the pardon.
If Abbott can only act on the parole boards recommendations then I hope he stuffs that with people he can trust to make that recommendation.
I think he can still pardon, regardless of what the board recommends. But, the process is that he must have the recommendation before he takes that step.
The pardon should’ve been done yesterday. The leftist prosecutor and judge believe that a citizen must submit to a mob and be fired upon at point blank range before defending oneself.
I had to give you a thumbs down because they don’t believe you have *any* right to self-defense.
If you gotta protect yourself, flee the scene and leave no witnesses.
Yeah ok, tough guy.
Question: Should I respond to prickly, little homosexualists who are enthralled by me, or just ignore them?
OMG! Go to the Rambo channel. Sane people visit this site not super heroes.
In a just society murder carries the death penalty. Also in a just society perjury, in aid of convicting another, should carry the same penalty as the crime accused of. All of the witnesses were scum aligned with the man Perry shot in self defense. They all could be expected to perjure themselves regarding a crime which should carry the death penalty. Perry knew he would be unjustly charged and convicted with the aid of these witnesses. He would simply be choosing to not sacrifice his life and he would also be providing the justice which the system will not.
What an outrageous and unjust prosecution/sentence.
Drivers whose cars are surrounded by scores of belligerent and chaotic Dumb-o-crats thugs and agitators are now supposed to presume/assume the goodwill and benevolent intent of one of those agitators approaching his/her vehicle while brandishing a firearm that is perceived by the driver — the fear/perception is what matters — to be raised in a threatening manner.
In the real world, drivers placed in such situations don’t have the luxury of making perfect decisions in the midst of such chaos and belligerence, and, it’s outrageously unfair and unjust to demand that they do so.
Andrew Branca–frequent commentator here on Legal Insurrection–literally wrote the book on self-defense law and is a consultant on defense teams that go to court. He actually offers a type of insurance for people who carry, in case they ever get into self-defense trouble, he will be there for to help with their legal issues.
He also believes this was a reasonable decision by the jury, and said so here on L.I.
Evidently, since Perry did not wait to be shot, it was not self defense. Since the “victim” had scores of like minded “witnesses”, the weapon was never pointed at Perry. I used to live in TX and I will NEVER go back there due to this “legal” ruling. Of all the places I thought were safe from dumbocrat loonies, I would never had foreseen this! Why was it even OK for a rioter/demonstrator to be armed with an AR-15?
Look carefully at the photo used in the trial just before he got shot and you will see the man did not point the AK at Perry. The barrel is clearly pointing down when he approached the window of the car. All of this anger is well-directed but when the facts dispute the claim of self-defense, it is entirely misplaced.
Whether the rifle was actually pointed at Perry is irrelevant, from a legal standpoint — it’s Perry’s perception and fear that matter. If Perry’s perception/fear was deemed reasonable — and, in the midst of the chaos and belligerence created by the thugs surrounding his car and creating a hostile and threatening situation, such fear/perception is absolutely reasonable — then Perry’s actions in self-defense were lawful.
Andrew Branco said that there was conflicting evidence presented and said that there was evidence that supported the verdict.
However, the jury could have sided with the defendant and that verdict would also have been reasonable.
Yes. Overturning a reasonable verdict isn’t a road I want to go down.
IIRC Branca also said that Curtis Reeves was not justified.
You are correct and that is called “Jury nullification” as in the OJ trial where the evidence pointed to OJ but the jury let him off because of racial bias.
Fat-fingered that last…
Branca is wrong on this. It happens.
He’s assuming good faith on the part of the system. There isn’t any. That leads to flawed conclusions.
“Andrew Branca … is a consultant on defense teams that go to court.”
I wonder if he thinks this was a competent defense?
— One, grainy video? I don’t buy that.
— How surrounded do you have to be before it’s an attack, a threat, you are in reasonable fear for your life, gun or no? By people carrying guns. Dressed the same. Like people who have been free-firing, and assaulting people who happen by for years. (You don’t want it though you’re gonna maybe act the same, don’t wear the uniform.)
— Since we’re leaking the driver’s social media, what do we have on the surrounding mob? How’d they organize? What were they sayin to each other as it unfolded? Why’d they say they brought the guns, BTW? (Before the fact, not now, when they’ll lie.)
— I do wonder that that DA has said about Antifa, Riots, and so on.
That charging and sentence were political, not criminal justice. Surrounded, in an instant, this guy makes a split-second decision, so he’s in jail for the rest of his life. Like killing someone in the course of an armed robbery?
The message is you aren’t allowed to defend yourself; and these people have all the room to destroy they want.
Good to know.
The verdict is correct for murder — but only in a civil society. Of course you cannot claim self defense if a weapon is not pointed at you.
But. When the government allows — and even encourages — racially motivated riots because it benefits one party politically, and rioters arm themselves as a result, it is obvious that civil society has ceased to exist. Therefore what would have been murder is now self defense.
This is why the corruption of institutions is the death knell of a democratic republic. Law and order evaporates and people are put in danger yet are expected to abide by the laws of that no longer civil society.
Approaching someone while brandishing a firearm and participating in a riot is now a nothing… same as with Neely in NYC… until you are shot or slugged… then it will be considered a danger. For the Marine…. his spidey sense knew this guy was trouble which is born out by his rap sheet. Was it “profiling”… well in total yes because it was correct. Still haven’t seen the tox screen on Neely. Any bets?
The people who claimed the gun wasn’t pointed were involved in the commission of the same crime as Foster.
Civil society recognizes that the right to self-defense activates before it is too late. This means it is not necessary to wait until the weapon is pointed at you before defending yourself.
Exactly. All that matters is that the person exerting self-defense possess a reasonable fear of imminent, serious bodily harm and/or death. Those elements were present, here.
You are wrong kimosabe and if you do what you just spouted out, you will go to jail for a long time. If you are carrying a gun and someone sees you, do they have the right to shoot you because they were only acting in self-defense? What total BS!
The key question is, were you threatening them? A simple hypothetical illustrates the point:
A. Man walks into a gas station carrying a rifle, and picks out a bottle of soda and approaches the counter, credit card in hand. Threat?
B. Man walks into a gas station carrying a rifle, does not point it, but says, had over the cash or I will shot you. Threat?
The case here is neither of these extremes, but also works to defeat artificial bright line tests.
You’re neglecting the context of the incident at issue, entirely, because it doesn’t support your misguided and myopic thesis. Context is everything, in this situation.
There was a riot going on. Perry’s car was surrounded by belligerent thugs. The decedent approached Perry’s car with a rifle. Why did he approach the car — you think that represents a benign and benevolent action, approaching an impeded vehicle that is surrounded by a hostile mob, with a rifle? Was he approaching the car to give the driver a bottle of water, or, words of encouragement? Get real and use some common sense.
You’re off your rocker.
You are right that governments allow this crap to go on but you cannot say they pulled the trigger. That is why cops and people who carry guns go through training to learn how to react in similar situations. Perry obviously panicked and shot a man who was not pointing a gun at him. He did the opposite of the kid in WI, Rittenhouse who kept his cool and only fired when a gun was stuck in his face. He did this while lying on his back with a mob chasing him. Perry was sitting in a running car and could have backed up and escaped. What a difference between the two men’s actions.
An “AK-47” is an actual [high capacity] machine gun and military weapon.
Um…..I think you may want to check your notes for the actual definition of a machine gun.
I think you may want to be more granular. The AK-47, the AKM-47 and variants do fire full auto along with semi-auto as an option. If you want to split hairs, we can delve into full power machine guns as the M-60 and MG-42, the main battle rifles such as the FNFAL and M-14, the select fire intermediate cartridge assault rifles such as the Stg44, M16/M4 and AKs or the pistol caliber submachine guns of the German MP series, Thompsons, Sten etc. All of these are by function… machine guns. As for “high capacity”… all of these are standard capacity. We can abandon the real world and use terms made up by politicians…. such as “high capacity”.
As with henrybowman… I am discussing REAL military firearms and not what’s in the rack at the local gun store. The irony is that the magazine feed semi-auto was first a civilian firearm design as military doctrine prior to WWI and into WWI didn’t consider these designs as desirable.
The name of this particular gun doesn’t tell you anything, since it comes in both semi- and fully-automatic models. Most AK-47s (outside the US) are fully automatic, since those are actually “weapons of war” (i.e., used by national armies and military belligerents), but not most of those inside the US.
Eff around and find out.
Rittenhouse could easily have been shot the same way. Both brought rifles to riots they didn’t need to be at.
Would the hypothetical shooter doing the same to Rittenhouse have been convicted? I don’t think a dead Rittenhouse would be brought back to life for that conviction nor is a smile from the grave a consolation prize for being “right.”
There are laws and there is life. Life is full of people unconcerned with laws or consequences. Justice is neither a guarantee nor a warrantee for your well being. Govern your own self accordingly. Neither of these clowns did so. Neither will have a very merry Christmas in the coming years.
Rittenhouse didn’t go to a riot. He went to protect a business. The riot came to him, and the rioters tried to lynch him.
Rittenhouse literally broke 90% of the “rules of stupid.” As did both of these clowns. I say 90% because Kyle was handing out water and rendering first aid…none of which eliminates the danger taken on for breaking the other 90%. In the face of real danger- is it my house, my stuff, my immediate friends or my family? If “no”, that fight is optional for you. You choose it, you get what comes. That’s exactly how it played out in both cases and Kyle was hella lucky someone didn’t do the same to him while accusing him of brandishing.
The phrase, not my monkey’s not my circus says what should have been done, the phrase eff around and find out says what actually went down.
Go to a trailer park and inject yourself into every fight that comes up if you feel so strongly about being in fights you don’t need to be a part of. Go to downtown San Fran and save Target from looters for that matter. Thump your chest about it in the comment section on the internet. You too can go through a defense trial.
Everyone involved in deliberately sought out the conflict.
Pound the table all you want about being right- but that makes you a moron just like the open carry morons who bring their ARs to Starbucks to prove they are right.
My understanding is that Rittenhouse never pointed or brandished his AR rifle in a way that could fairly be construed as threatening, to anyone.
That makes a comparison between Rittenhouse and the decedent in this case completely inapposite and incongruous, factually and legally.
Also, FYI — slinging around childish ad hominem insults, as you do, doesn’t make your contentions more convincing — quite the opposite, in fact.
You seem very frustrated and angry, to be engaged in name-calling as you do. A more dispassionate approach would work better.
Some people are just mad that other people try to make the world a better place. Doing literally anything is “stupid” to such a person. It’s nihilism born of demoralization.
Rittenhouse was accused of “brandishing.” In the press. By politicians, still. By the prosecution, who mad a big deal of his pointing the rifle in the direction of his pursuers, as he was running away after firing.
AIR, charging was considered — per the prosecution — and dropped.
Accusation, charging, and yes, conviction for “brandishing” is a bit of a spectrum in practice, whatever the precise elements of the crime may be in any given jurisdiction.
And he acted within the law. He was the coolest kid under fire that I can ever imagine. He did the opposite of Perry.
I don’ recall Rittenhouse threatening anyone, or participating in any groups that threatened people, or impeded them moving on the public streets.
The “witnesses” were involved in the commission of the same crime Foster was — false imprisonment and assault with a deadly weapon. They all should have been co-defendants in a felony murder trial.
Beat me to it.
At what point does bring fire-arms to a riot you’re rioting in make that assault. Mostly peaceful assault, no doubt, but still.
The recommendation from NYC is shut up, take the beating, and go on with life (after surgery and rehab). There is no overriding reason to ever go to NYC or any major city if you don’t have to. Let the Doom Loops continue…just be sure the flight from them doesn’t settle in your neighborhood. The three years of Global Covid Authoritarian Imprisonment has sealed the deal.
We are at war. Prepare accordingly.
“ two months after a Minneapolis police officer killed George Floyd.”
Still pushing that narrative…Floyd was already dead from ingesting his fentanyl packet,.he just didn’t know it at the time.
That aside, there is no allowance in America for self defense of oneself or property, or keeping a repeatedly released reprobate habitual criminal from harming others (NYC subway bravery), or creating new Law for a specific accusation to get someone they hate in any manner possible (Trump)…scumbag DA’s are running open loop with unconstitutional lawlessness, flaunting due process in order to enact mob rule. “The law” is backwards and upside down….effectively making it nonexistent for the innocent.
Pro Tip- Stay away from cities…leave the rats to their own devices.
You are wrong about no defense from the law on self-defense. It all depends on the state you live in at the time. If I have a thug at my front door at 2 AM and shoot him through my door, that is not self-defense. If he breaks the glass or door then I can legally shoot him. Proving intent is very difficult and that is why you must have all of the facts in your favor before acting in self-defense. There are many times when the circumstances that you find yourself in that you know you are in danger but cannot just start shooting people. It must be a direct threat, not felt.
Anytime some approaches you with a gun in a volatile situation you have to defend yourself and getting shot first is not a prerequisite. Kudo’s to Gov Abbott.
in reply to ann in la
“in your face” not proven in court
“angry and deranged” not proven in court
this incident occurred at arm’s length as is obvious from the photo(s) stills from the video–definitely “in your face”
regards “angry and deranged” would be something the defender had only an instant to determine
those are facts
you’ve obviously never been in the defender’s position or similar
Look at the photo and follow the dark straight line of the barrel and you can clearly see that it was not “In his face”. Why do people keep saying this when it is not true? In fact, he is so close to the car that I don’t think he could have even raised the muzzle up to the window, that’s why it is pointing down.
Haven’t followed the trial closely, so if someone can add color that would be helpful.
The troubling aspect here is Perry appears to be the victim of a crime himself, in which all the witnesses are participants in. That is, they were engaged in blocking and threatening him by blocking his passage and related items. They collectively had reason to lie, or at a minimum not remember. They likely are guilty of felony murder. Had they been charged also, I suspect there might be some with different memories.
A man walking on the street with a rifle is not a per se threat to anyone. A man with a rifle walking up to someone who is already involuntarily confined in his car and threated by others present a rather different set of facts. Even if he didn’t point the rifle at Perry, he might be perceived as a threat. The context matters.