Daniel Perry Gets Full Pardon From Texas Governor Abbott
“Texas has one of the strongest ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws of self-defense that cannot be nullified by a jury or a progressive District Attorney. I thank the Board for its thorough investigation, and I approve their pardon recommendation.”
On April 7, 2023, Daniel Perry was found guilty in the 2020 murder of Garret Foster during a Black Lives Matter protest in Austin.
The shooting occurred as Perry was driving his Uber vehicle amongst a crowd of BLM protestors in the street, and while Foster was among the protestors carrying an AK-47 on a sling. The rifle-armed Foster approached the driver’s side door of Perry’s car, Perry rolled down his window, and shot at Foster five times with a pistol, striking him with three rounds, effectively killing Foster instantly.
Perry fled the scene, during which another protestor fired three shots, striking Perry’s vehicle. Perry then called 911, and was shortly thereafter approached by and spoke with a responding police officer. From the start Perry would be arguing that he shot Foster in self-defense, and only after Foster had pointed his rifle at Perry.
Andrew Branca analyzed the legal sufficiency of the conviction for us, and found it legally sufficient regardless of what the political reaction was or how much people sympathized with Perry, Daniel Perry’s Murder Conviction Was Legally Sound:
Certainly, if the jury believed that Perry fired only after Foster pointed his rifle at him, there could hardly be a clearer case of self-defense. Indeed, as someone who personally carries a firearm for self-defense on a regular basis, anyone who unlawfully points a rifle at me ought to have a high expectation of getting shot in self-defense.
Immediately following the announcement of the guilty verdict, social media rather exploded with outrage at a guilty verdict so insanely inconsistent with Perry’s narrative of shooting in self-defense only after facing the muzzle of Foster’s rifle.
The problem with this outrage, however, is that it presumes as an indisputable fact that Foster initiated the deadly force confrontation by pointing his rifle at Perry.
That “fact,” however, is not indisputable. Indeed, that fact was aggressively disputed by the prosecution, which argued to the jury that Foster never pointed his rifle at Perry, and so Perry’s claimed legal grounds for shooting Foster in self-defense simply doesn’t exist.
In support of this narrative of guilt the prosecution presented the testimony of multiple witnesses who told the jury that Foster never pointed his rifle at Perry. The confrontation itself was captured on poor quality video, from which screen captures were secured, and neither video nor stills ever show Foster pointing his gun at Perry.
Indeed, the only evidence to support Perry’s claim of Foster pointing his rifle at him are Perry’s own self-serving statements following the shooting.
If the jury concluded that Foster had not, in fact, pointed his rifle at Perry, then it must also conclude that it was Perry who was the initial deadly force aggressor in this confrontation when he shot Foster—and, as the initial deadly force aggressor Perry cannot justify his use of force as self-defense.
****
I have seen posted on Twitter a photo that purports to actually show Foster pointing his rifle at Perry ….
… I simply don’t see it. If anything, it appears to me that Foster has his rifle held in a quite vertical fashion, rather than in the much more horizontal manner that would be required to orient the muzzle of his rifle at Perry. For clarity, I added to this image the red diagonal line in order to indicate what I perceive to be the approximate orientation of Foster’s rifle.
Read the rest of Andrew’s analysis and some of the popular myths about the case at the link above.
There was huge public sympathy, as people instinctively could put themselves in Perry’s situation given the riots rampant around the country. What if you got trapped that way?
But the public feeling sympathy was not going to win the legal argument.
I wrote after the trial, Daniel Perry Files Motion for New Trial As Pardon Process Starts
I don’t like this result, even if it holds up to legal scrutiny, but there may be no legal out, as Andrew demonstrated. The only out appears to be political.
Gov. Greg Abbott said he wants to pardon Perry. Under Texas law, he can do that only if the pardon board recommends a pardon, so Abbott has requested expedited review. That process is starting:
… the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles is looking into possibly recommending a pardon for Daniel Perry per a request made by Governor Greg Abbott.
The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles sent FOX 7 Austin this statement:
“Chairman Gutierrez, the Presiding Officer of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles has received a request from Governor Abbott asking for an expedited investigation, along with a recommendation as to a pardon for U.S. Army Sergeant Daniel Perry. The board will be commencing that investigation immediately. Upon completion, the board will report to the governor on the investigation and make recommendations to the governor. The Board has no further comment.”
Perry received a 25 Year Sentence.
The Pardon process now is completed, and Governor Abbott accepted the unanimous pardon recommendation, including restoration of Second Amendment rights:
“The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles conducted an exhaustive review of U.S. Army Sergeant Daniel Perry’s personal history and the facts surrounding the July 2020 incident and recommended a Full Pardon and Restoration of Full Civil Rights of Citizenship,” said Governor Abbott. “Among the voluminous files reviewed by the Board, they considered information provided by the Travis County District Attorney, the full investigative report on Daniel Perry, plus a review of all the testimony provided at trial. Texas has one of the strongest ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws of self-defense that cannot be nullified by a jury or a progressive District Attorney. I thank the Board for its thorough investigation, and I approve their pardon recommendation.”
Governor Abbott has just pardoned Sergeant Daniel Perry after a unanimous recommendation by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. Americans across the country have been watching this case in Texas and praying for justice after BLM riots terrorized the nation in 2020. Our right…
— Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) May 16, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Better late than never!
How is this late exactly? The governor minus the board has no authority, from the article it looks to me like he did the pardon as soon as he was granted the board decision which seems fast to me.
All governors do not have the same authority.
This happened a year ago and should never have gone as far as it did.
As Virginia says, NOW justice has been served.
I don’t think many of us disagree that the pardon was correct. The issue here seems to be the timing of the pardon and that somehow Gov Abbott had the ability to act sooner or unilaterally.
If it were not then the comment would have been something like ‘Gov Abbott acted swiftly as possible to set in motion the pardons process to see Justice done despite the actions of the Jury, the Trial CT and Prosecution’.
He said late.
Governor Abott had no authority to do this unilaterally, his authority to issue someone a pardon is only what the board says it is. If the board had said no instead of yes the pardon wouldn’t have been possible. The governor also sent the issue to the board the instant it was legal to do so (as in the moment he was convicted.
As I said before all governors do not have the same authority, state laws make it vary dramatically state to state.
I took the ‘late’ as not specifically about the pardon, but about Perry being freed and cleared.
Garrett Foster had his gun in the ready position as part of a violent mob surrounding a car whose driver did nothing illegal. Good riddance to Foster and I’m glad Penny is finally released from prison. Shame on the prosecutor and the 12 clowns on the jury.
Perry. Penny in NYC is still in the hot seat.
As much as I respect Prof. Jacobson, I wonder if he fully appreciates just how quickly the person could have raised and fired a round into Perry, even if he was holding the rifle as Prof. Jacobson theorizes. Added to the fact that Paddy M mentions (the violent mob surrounding his car for no reason), and this is not the clear legal conclusion it is purported to be. Were I governor, I would have pardoned him as well. Too many people fail to fully appreciate what is happening “in the moment.” The cost of giving this person (the one holding the rifle) the benefit of the doubt could very well be Perry’s life. The person holding the rifle created that situation, not Perry.
I think part of the problem is defining illegal assembly as “free speech”. The person holding the rifle was doing so during the commission of a crime, which should increase his culpability .
I think that the description of how the decedent was holding the rifle was done by Atty Andrew Branca in the linked post, which a portion of was shown in this post. Prof. J is only the messenger of the pardon and used info from Atty Branca to put things in perspective. Of course, in my opinion.
The position of Foster’s arm leads me (an experienced rifleman) to believe he was in the act of raising the gun. His shoulder is up and his forearm is already nearly parallel to the ground. This is a weapon that’s not depending from a sling (with the bearer’s shooting hand on the grip to maintain control of the muzzle), this weapon is in motion and that motion is “up.”
That was my take too
Absolutely. Carrying a rifle in that ready position with the butt up is standard for military and larpers who want to be in the military. What strikes me is the position of his right arm. It is not against his body in a relaxed carry position, it is up and away from his body where it would be if he was lifting the rifle to shoot or getting ready to shoot. Looks to me like sound evidence that Perry was correct in his assumption he was in imminent danger. As a military Vet he knows or should know full well what a weapon getting ready to be used looks like.
What strikes me is the position of his right arm. It is not against his body in a relaxed carry position
Right arm? I see that his left arm is not against his body. I do not see his right arm.
Someone with a rifle who approaches me until he is two feet away leads me to conclude his intentions are hostile, whether or not he is raising the rifle.
My apologies. I was thinking the rifleman was at the side of the car, but he is in front of it.
I was wondering what you were looking at. The photo clearly shows that guy leaning left, shoulders hunched up and the right elbow lifting away from his body. Clearly moving that firearm into position to shoot. I’d not have voted anything other than self defense.
I am in awe of anybody who can make sense out of that grainy-ass photo.
I’m assuming dead guy is the one whose head is upper-leftmost inside that red circle.
If so, I absolutely cannot understand how the red line as drawn could have any relationship to the angle of the gun I cannot make out whatsoever, given that I can definitely make out the shooter’s arm, and it is absolutely in ready position.
In an age of honest jurisprudence, I’d be willing to give this weight. In our current age of Soros prosecutors and ham-sandwich juries, garnished by the Austin venue itself, I give it no weight whatsoever. As, apparently, neither did the Board of Pardons, after reviewing “all the testimony provided at trial.”
You can clearly see that dude’s chicken wing. Anyone with training knows what that means and is not wanting for the bang the react
Waiting to for the bang. Shoulder up and elbow out. Dude is clearly getting the butt into his shoulder to shoot.
Before the trial, I studied that photo and concluded that most of the gun is behind the woman in the foreground. The butt and the muzzle are probably sticking out past her, but they’re buried in graininess. Seeing the line of the gun in that is an exercise of imagination similar to that of the 19th Century astronomers who made imaginary connections between the grains in photos of Mars and saw canals.
But what is clear is the sling and arm positions – if the gun is still muzzle-down, it’s held so it can be swung up and fired before Perry could react. It can’t be known that he was going to do that, but in the context of joining a violent mob threatening Perry while carrying the rifle ready to swing up and fire, I’d say that Perry had good reason to fear for his life.
As for the witnesses who said Foster never pointed the rifle at Perry:
1) They were members of that violent mob. They’re less credible than the ones that lied about “Hands up, don’t shoot.”
2) Even if they weren’t liars, Foster was in position to point the gun and fire in a few tenths of a second. They could have missed a movement, or Perry could have seen any twitch as a move to level the gun. If you don’t want to be seen as intending to shoot, don’t join a mob while carrying a gun just one movement away from shooting.
Amen Paddy, Someone approaching with what is repeatedly described as a weapon of war must be treated as if he intends to use it. Not treating it with extreme prejudice is a factor in some school shootings
Precisely, Unless it is a LEO or NG, and you are not in the process of committing a crime, the only self preserving thought you can have is: “this person does not have my well being in mind.”
Naturally, the left would have released Foster on his own recognizance and no bail.
The question is did the driver have reasonable fear for his life? If so, it was a justifiable shooting. Regardless of whether the rifleman was planning on shooting.
A mob surrounds his car screaming who knows what and banging on it then some random guy with an AR rolls up and lifts it like he is going to get busy. Who would be threatened by that?
I absolutely agree. How long does it take to move the barrel from that “ready” position to firing position and pull the trigger?
Split seconds?
In my opinion, Perry was absolutely justified in perceiving that as an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm and defending himself in response.
He was surrounded by an angry mob and saw a guy holding a rifle to his shoulder split seconds from aiming and firing.
Andrew is basically saying that you have to wait until the bad guy has you dead to rights before you can take action. Sorry, not buying it. That’s a recipe for getting dead.
One fewer Democrat…
He’s still voting…
As I said when this verdict came in: the analysis here is probably correct out of context. However, the powers that be in Austin were encouraging the riots and preventing their enforcement. Those same people forfit the right to enforce their authority to enforce the laws only against Daniel Perry. Our Constitution requires equal justice under the law. That foundation has been removed, and the system has collapsed. Donald Trump is facing the same “justice” system on multiple fronts.
I’m certain that Andrew Branca is a wonderful person and lawyer, but is an anachronism in our present situation.
I agree with the pardon. However, I feel “anachronism” is a bit of an overreach. Branca’s gives his reasoning, in detail, with every shooting he reviews and I feel he is a valuable resource in the current laws of self-defence.
True… but this was/is Austin. Perry should have understood that “street justice” is a one way street in Austin and he was going the wrong way. Challenging the “Ascension of Martyrs” with its burned sacrifices of cities can be beyond reality.
I’m not going to say your wrong. I’ve said to friends before “If I am forced to fire, I hope they are white.” one more than one occasion.
Ask Kyle Rittenhouse about that scenario
Kyle is one of the few who has actually seen the miracle of transubstantiation of three white guys into three shot black guys.
My anachronism comment was in now may meant to suggest anything incorrect or diparage the value of his insight. It is a comment on the current justice system. His very good legal insight though only applies to a properly opeating justice system. We no longer have that.
The list of examples is long:
How many George Floyd rioters were prosecuted vs. Jan 6?
Who was prosecuted besides Rittenhouse? Mackay goes to jail for posting a meme? The actual peaceful protesters that are being sentenced for the FACE act? DJT?
Here’s the story of the hit and run driver who got a slap on the wrist. Gunned down in his driveway. It’s clearly a homicide, no self-defense claim available, but can we really say the murderer is guilty if the justice system refuses to act?
https://www.foxla.com/news/venice-hit-and-run-mom-baby-stolen-murdered-after-light-sentence-gascon
I find it hard to disagree, save to offer a caution: work within the system we have as best we can, where we can. Afterall … Grosskroits is learning to shake with his left hand these days.
Does he have many takers?
Um… “At this time, there is no indication that his death is connected to the hit-and-run case, and no suspect description was available.” So for all we know, his murder was employment-related.
“George Gascón’s office sought a five- to seven-month sentence in juvenile probation camp, a punishment for young offenders described as less severe than military school but harsher than summer camp.”
“Harsher than summer camp?” What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Hello muddah?
Upvote for the Alan Sherman reference.
Dude’s on his way to Camp Grenada
I don’t think he’s an anachronism, he’s a lawyer. And that’s why our justice system is so bad, because when the trend is to the left, all the lawyers with extremely rare exceptions will follow the marching orders.
Andrew Branca lives in Massachusetts. Surviving in that environment requires a strict set of rules that the Left doesn’t live by but demands of others. Selective prosecution in specially defined locales is not equal protection under the law. More and more cities/states are No-Go for those not shielded as “protected minority” or “politically protected” classes. The legal and political systems are devolving into avatars of the oppressor past. Perry has been permanently damaged by the “System”. Righting the ship of state means pumping out the bilges and that won’t be pretty.
Another Penny is still under the thumb of the authoritarian state in NYC. Self-preservation in NYC means watching the innocent suffer and die. Again… NYC is a NO-Go city now. Even Paul Kersey should know that by now.
Colorado. While we are quickly moving in the direction of NYC, he resides in Colorado.
He’s leaving Colorado for a place to be determined.
Not a few of us looking these days, given the latest near miss on the ‘assault weapons ban’ legislation.
“Andrew F. Branca is in his third decade of practicing law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts”. I must be behind the times?
His licensed in Massachusetts, resides in Colorado for now. He can’t legally represent in another state, just advise.
So, in Colorado… having moved from the fire into the frying pan. Dem states are seeing which one can out ban the others. There has got to be a “central committee” running the Dems .. a politburo for the nation.
“Self-preservation in NYC means watching the innocent suffer and die.”
This isn’t exactly true, it is possible to divorce yourself from the cauldron to a greater extent, but the truth contained in the statement is one of the greatest I have read in years.
I had to re-read several times because Daniel Perry is name of the marine who is charged with the choke hold death in the NYC subway.
NYC is Penny, oops.
Branca makes it clear he doesn’t analyze the politics, just the law. Problem is in 2024 United States all prosecution is political.
I’d reach back further, starting at least with the Open Society initiatives regarding DAs. But you’re not wrong.
Yep, in blue cities or states there is no justice system only a legal system where guilt or innocence is based on tribal identity.
He does indeed make it clear that he analyzes what the law says in a particular situation not what we want it to be or what a crooked jury, judge and DA will twist it to be.
Well of course he’s say that. Whether it’s true or not.
I think he’s a trend follower like 99% of other lawyers. You can get useful work from such people. You just have to spend a lot of energy at oversight.
Branca’s batting average is not that great recently.
The Jury gets the final say….after the Judge has issued their rulings on what evidence is admissible, what the Jury instructions will be and on composition of the Jury. Very important variables outside a strict statutory/fact analysis.
It was a bad verdict at a bad time in history. At the same time there were other unjust verdicts, like Derek Chauvin and the Arbery defendants — even the guy far away with a cell phone camera were convicted of murder.
More of those verdicts need to be reversed.
And Branca, being a lawyer, just went with the flow, then found legal arguments to support the position. Lawyers are politicians. The student government types often go on to become lawyers.
Members of BLM reap what they sow.
Amen!
Branca is often correct but he has his times he just blows it. This case and Bryd killing Ashli Babbitt are huge misses on his part.
He wasn’t going to stand against the tide at that moment in history. He couldn’t know then that we would come to this moment in history.
I thought the standard was “in fear for one’s life or of grievous bodily harm”? Perry’s car was surrounded by an angry mob. The members of that mob, collectively, created a threat to Perry’s life, he could see at least one of the mob was armed, multiple attackers created a “disparity of force”, and, under the circumstances, a reasonable person could safely presume that others in the mob were armed (as turned out to be true, confirming the “reasonableness” of what Perry may have been suspected), and he shot at the person who, out of everyone in the mob, presented the most obvious and imminent threat.
If that wasn’t a good shoot, I don’t know what is.
And, sorry, but self-defense is not a game. Innocent persons should not have to wait until they know that their lives are in danger, because by then it may be too late. An innocent person, unlawfully assaulted, should have a right to assure their own survival, and their attackers should have no reasonable expectation of surviving the act.
There’s more, but just let me say I call this “the right to survival.” It’s a concept I’ve been mulling for several years now. It is a more realistic concept than “legal” self-defense, it’s “lawful survival.” Is there anyone here who would deny an innocent person has a right to survive a physical attack, or that a criminal assailant should have a legal right to a reasonable expectation of surviving his assault on an innocent person?
Should have been “or agrees that a criminal assailant should have a legal right to a reasonable expectation of surviving his assault on an innocent person?”
Uh, you sure you got that correct as I certainly do not agree with that statement. A criminal assailant should not have any expectation, reasonable or otherwise, of surviving when assaulting an innocent person. The assailant should expect the victim to be armed. Risk/benefit. Does the benefit of my assailing that guy and taking his money outweigh the risk he might be armed? In Cali then yeah, in Texas the answer would be no.
“I thought the standard was “in fear for one’s life or of grievous bodily harm”?”
Yeah, this. Parsing of whether AK-guy shouldered n sighted down seems only part of the standard. How sure do you have to be? When can you assume that a mob surrounding your car, is gonna do what that other mob did? You’re not at risk until he points the live AK at you, and you know it?
Here’s a hypothetical to make it good and uncomfortable. You’re somewhere “between the river and the sea”, dressed in your team’s colors, as a pack of the other team. visibly armed, surrounds your car. At what point are you reasonably in fear?
I was taught with the acronym of “AOJ”… administration of justice. A- ability, O-opportunity and J- jeopardy. All three boxes were checked off with Foster. He had the ability, the opportunity, and the Perry was in immediate jeopardy. Foster was “brandishing” a lethal weapon. Was there an avenue of retreat to deescalate the confrontation? Would have been “accepted” by Foster as this has gone “racial”?
Yeah I expanded on this point of brandishing below. Many people think that one must be pointing a weapon directly at someone to be in violation of brandishing statutes. It’s simply not true.
He is clearly “displaying and handling his weapon in a menacing/threatening fashion” from over the position of the driver with it a small acute angle away of being raised and fired directly at the driver. This is textbook brandishing.
I think this issue of whether the decedent “pointed his rifle” at Perry is irrelevant. The legal standard is whether the actor reasonably fears imminent serious bodily harm or death. Some moron walking towards a car door carrying a rifle — whether slung or not — as part of a hostile mob, creates a sufficient apprehension as to fear of imminent bodily harm or death, in my view.
And, it is possible that Perry’s fear and anxiety caused him to see things with less than perfect clarity/comprehension, in the moment. That’s the fault of the frenzied mob; not Perry.
The bottom line is that it’s absurd to apply a hyper-critical scrutiny of Perry’s perceptions, at the time — it’s unfair and unreasonable to expect a person who is surrounded by a hostile and chaotic mob to be able to divine with 100% accuracy and perfection, the individual motives of the mob’s members. What was obvious was that the mob wasn’t friendly in its behavior.
My disagreement with Andrew Branca is not with his analysis of the law of self defense. Instead, there is one major assumption in his analysis that is demonstrably false.
Branca was assuming that the laws of the city, state and the US were still in effect in Austin at the time Garret Foster was shot. The exact opposite is true: Austin city leaders deliberately handed control of the streets to a left-wing militia composed on genocidal maniacs.
One has only to look at the statements and actions of Democrat mayors and city leaders in Austin, New York, Minneapolis, Boston, Chicago and Portland that deadly summer of 2020 to know that control significant portions of major US cities were handed over to violent mobs. There was nothing coy or subtle about it: these politicians believed that the mobs represented a power that could not be stopped, and they could ride that mob fury to power that could never be taken away. What happened in the summer of 2020 was an armed rebellion against the United States led by the Democrat Party using a militia they bought and paid for.
During the Freddie Gray debacle in Baltimore, the mayor intentionally let the mob burn and burn until they were tired of burning. As the AG of Massachusetts said… “you can’t grow a new forest until you burn down the old one.”
I believe she stated
we gave them room to destroy
I think Kamala Harris’ recent comment something like “sometimes you just have to (censored) kick the door down” is in the same spirit. Don’t cooperate with the system that gave you a chance. Turn on it when you have the opportunity.
The left is deeply evil.
Foster was on video and stated that he would confront the “p**sies” if need be
he did
they had the man trapped by their blm crowd and recall that anyone who drove through those mass rioters was more subjected to police action than the blmplo crowd that lit the cities up during those violent protests
Andrew Branca Was just plain wrong!
Here is where Braca is in fact wrong:
Indeed, the only evidence to support Perry’s claim of Foster pointing his rifle at him are Perry’s own self-serving statements following the shooting.
and SELF SERVING WERE THE “WITNESSES” who were all Fosters kklan aka blmplo
foster had a weapon
foster was on video stating what he would do if need be
Kyle Rittenhouse WAS ATTACKED>>>CAUGHT ON VIDEO no less being attacked
and they still tried to hang that young patriot
“… I simply don’t see it. If anything, it appears to me that Foster has his rifle held in a quite vertical fashion, rather than in the much more horizontal manner that would be required to orient the muzzle of his rifle at Perry. For clarity, I added to this image the red diagonal line in order to indicate what I perceive to be the approximate orientation of Foster’s rifle.”
This is a false narrative. Brandishing does not require one to point their rifle at someone to be charged. A man in Virginia was charged for brandishing simply by displaying his pistol on his hip in a showy fashion as if to indicate a threat when he got into a traffic altercation on the side of the road. By the fact that the man’s hand is on his rifle in a ready to grip and fire position, then he has a legitimate claim. The guy is over his vehicle in a threatening fashion. He has no reason to be there unless he is looking to escalate a confrontation with the driver. I would not have voted guilty on this even with the crappy lawyers he had that weren’t able to push this point home.
Bottom line is that it’s absurd to expect the victim who is surrounded by a hostile and armed mob, to be able to presume/assume/divine with perfect clarity and accuracy what the mob’s members’ exact intentions are. Plenty of people have ended up dead, presuming benevolent intent, where none existed.
The only thing that was clear at the time to Perry and any other reasonable neutral observer was that the mob was acting in a decidedly hostile and belligerent manner.
Ok. For argument sake… there’s A another summer of ‘mostly peaceful protests’ that kick off this year. My neighbors and I set up an ad hoc patrol. We have our long guns slung in a one/two point sling. We approach the vehicle stopped at our ad hoc ‘checkpoint’. Basically the same situation as this case but here the driver and occupants of the vehicle are ‘city folk’ come to the rural areas to do mischief/evil. Vehicle has out of County plates and none of the occupants are known to us and the plates are for an urban County where a violent group has told members to go to rural areas to do violence.
We have our weapons just as the the guy did here. Are you telling me the driver should shoot us and would be justified?
We have our weapons just as the the guy did here. Are you telling me the driver should shoot us and would be justified?
______________________________________________________
not even remotely close to the situation perry encountered
They stop the vehicle, approach the driver’s side with weapons at the ready just as in the sandbox
(minus crew served aimed at vehicle), Driver and occupants are understandably twitchy/nervous b/c this ain’t what they bargained for. No ‘mob’ surrounding them but rather a squad size group of scary looking MFs deployed, all of whom look/act like hardened Veterans who have run a TCP 1,000 times before and who use the terrain to their advantage.
I gotta say that I would be far more worried about what I am describing than an undisciplined mob. A group of unorganized a holes can be beaten back pretty easily…..as Perry proved…. but an organized group who actually know WTF they are doing b/c they’ve done it before under worse conditions? Not so easy.
except you set up the “checkpoint” SAME AS FOSTER DID
NOT PERRY WHO DROVE INTO THE AREA AND WAS TRAPPED
and being trapped by the way would constitute oppression by the blmplo group
It is BLMPLO WHO SET UP THOSE CHECKPOINTS
NOWWW onto your scenario itself
poc have over and over been paid by the city taxpayers ( as in having been wronged by the police) when in actual commissions of crimes ,,, as way to compensate them from being “wronged” by the police
so in YOUR SCENARIO
you are the police and you did wrong in surrounding the car/occupant
WHO HAS NOTTTT BEEN ENGAGED IN ANY CRIME (other than being white..per the blmplo doctrines)
Funny. Don’t forget these morons are out in the sticks where there is no one but a Sheriff’s deputy who comes around on these dirt roads maybe every other month and he is occupied elsewhere so ain’t gonna see that guy. Plus everyone around there has plenty of land and earth moving equipment and can keep their mouth shut. So if it were me in the driver’s seat I would would be far more worried in the scenario I lay out than in Perry’s situation b/c the threat level is higher.
You don’t have the authority to set up your fake checkpoints.
You are actually committing several crimes just by doing so.
If you surround the vehicle in similar menacing fashion with a mob and also ready your rifle in ready low position then yes you are dumb and can be shot. The politics of it don’t matter.
If you believe that carrying a rifle at the ‘low ready’ is grounds for someone else to open fire on that person…..you are mistaken and in a prolonged period folks who are fired upon b/c of it will likely adopt a shoot first, ask questions later response due to your unnecessary escalation.
As for ‘checkpoints’ I doubt anyone will be asking permission to do so in the circumstances I described… violent mobs streaming out of the cities into rural areas for the express purpose of committing violence and mayhem. That’s the breakdown of civil order and exigent circumstances exist as mine can’t stream out unless LEO/NG have already been overwhelmed.
‘Carefully read it again and you will plainly see it was a hypothetical scenario. However I would not put it past some folks in rural areas to do exactly that…just as happened at the entrance to small close knit communities and neighborhoods during the ‘summer of love’. Lots of examples where various groups set up restricted access to protect their families. Not just Red rural areas either but also in suburbs and ethnic neighborhoods in/around blue enclaves/States.
There’s nothing to carefully read unless you want me to read between the lines into what is not written in the original post. With the new information you are trying to add after the fact, then your entire scenario is moot because legal self defense doesn’t matter.
If law and order breaks down to the point of anarchy and uncontrolled violence then it would be monumentally stupid to do something like set up a checkpoint where you can play at being an authority and put a target on your back…or front.
If one finds themselves in such dire straits, then you scout from a safe distance and vantage point. You don’t stand in the street waiting for threats to pull up next to you in their vehicle and just “stop”.
Legality of defense or offense doesn’t matter at that point…the rules of engagement don’t even matter any more at that point, so any military or ex-military that are behaving with such rules in mind are putting themselves out there as prey.
Ok then. Not sure what was unclear in my original post that didn’t indicate a societal collapse buy I will take your word for it. Personally I wouldn’t set up TCP in such an environment but was trying to make a point with a hypothetical while also drawing attention to two facts:
1. The low ready isn’t grounds to open fire on someone, that’s the point of the low ready position, it shows someone is ready to act but hasn’t yet, while putting the person in the low ready position into a stance to act swiftly from passive to active; it is non threatening (though shifting the weapon FROM the low ready to the shoulder and bringing the barrel to train on someone DEFINITELY is a threat)
2. Lots of check points got set during the the summer of ‘fiery but mostly peaceful’ protests. I recall three clearly. One in NJ with Italians setting up to stop entry to their old ethnic neighborhood. One in Houston (I think) with Latinos setting up a TCP to prevent entry and one in rural PA where a small rural area did the same. No one got shot or arrested.
IMO in the scenario I outlined the better choice for a truly rural area is to find choke points further out as practicable and emplace abatis as obstacles and overwatch them. Should be sufficient deterrent to redirect evildoers elsewhere in the first days/weeks of a societal collapse. Opinions vary but I believe the better course is to have chosen a low conflict area beforehand and then create a defense in depth using terrain, choke points, obstacles, limited active patrolling (due to lower personnel available) with drones and cameras filling the gaps. The cities and suburbs would definitely not be a good place to be in such a catastrophe.
If one can fire very quickly from the low-ready position, given all the aspects (for example, whether the arm was rising, was relaxed or not, etc.) then it is NOT “non-threatening” regardless of what someone intended or taught. It’s a question of fact.
“1. The low ready isn’t grounds to open fire on someone, that’s the point of the low ready position, it shows someone is ready to act but hasn’t yet, while putting the person in the low ready position into a stance to act swiftly from passive to active; it is non threatening (though shifting the weapon FROM the low ready to the shoulder and bringing the barrel to train on someone DEFINITELY is a threat)”
If this were all it was, I would tend to agree with you. Here’s the difference: there was law enforcement present. This guy was completely stopped and halted by mob INCLUDING the guy with the rifle. That’s when it becomes a lot more threatening. And yes, if a group formed their own “checkpoint” (aka mob in this case) to stop people from being able to disrupt a Trump rally, I would say the same thing. You don’t form mobs in the street and you don’t carry guns in those mobs ready to raise the muzzle and fire unless you want a dose of FAFO. This is not a military or even LEO op, so you don’t have the rights to walk around ready to raise and fire.
Lastly, you will notice that when these open carry protests are enacted to protest gun grabbers, the open carriers are smart enough to sling their rifle and not hold it in such a postion. Notice how they all know better than to do it. Why? Because holding in that position gives the politicians an excuse to have them arrested for brandishing. (Rittenhouse was smart enough not to do this, too, BTW.)
I do think Abbott invoked “Stand Your Ground” for political points. This is not a SYG situation because there was no available avenue of safe retreat sans running people over. No duty to retreat doesn’t come into play unless one has the option.
Professor Jacobson’s analysis of one blurry film frame is as impressive as Senator Whitehouse’s analysis of Justice Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook. It takes years of advanced education and study to eliminate every last vestige of common sense from one’s mind.
Branca analyzed the frame, not Jacobson.
Thanks, you’re correct. I read Branca’s book on self-defense. His ego is heavily invested in telling the ignorant layman that justified self-defense is so highly complicated that one might just as well die than attempt it. By dissecting a deadly encounter into endless 1-second decision trees, the greater picture is lost. That is why our system relies on a jury of one’s peers. Unfortunately, there are no peers to be found in the halls of justice- just freaks.
at the end of all this perry is alive and his freedom is restored–kudos to the governor for stepping-up and correcting the dysfunctional acts of the broken/corrupt ” legal system ” in what used to be our capitol city
Branca’s analysis was, of course, completely wrong–and he should have seen why right from the start.
The photos and video the prosecution used all had one thing in common. And Branca did nothing to counter that in his analysis.
None of it attempts to show what it looked like from INSIDE the car
It is carefully crafted to never allow that view or to even suggest that there might be a different view.
And Branca ate that garbage up –‘self-serving’? Really?
If you wait until someone is pointing a firearm at you in a hostile situation you are now at their mercy and most likely dead. Forget the Quick Draw McGraw routine, you can’t act fast enough to win that one. Never let someone point a firearm at you, never let someone get close enough to put their hands on you. Perry “should” have seen that guy with the firearm and drove his keister out of there running down as many of the mob as he had to. Failing that his last recourse was to shoot the guy which he was justified in doing.
I agree with the pardon and am happy that the pardon has occurred.
The image is very blurry and the gun itself is obscured by other people standing near Foster. Foster clearly has his right elbow out Which would appear to indicate he has a grip on the rifle grip and his finger would be near the trigger guard if not in it but we can’t tell where the finger is at all. At minimum the rifle is pointed at or near Perry’s legs. (Through the fenders of the car / dash, remember that car bodies are generally very thin and do not stop handguns runs well much less carbine rounds.) So to nitpick, the photo actually shows the rifle is pointing at Perry Even though the rifle is not horizontal to have been pointing at Perrys head, the rifle is pointing at him. Pointing at chest abdomen legs are just as much a deadly threat. The totality of the circumstance also should not be disputable that the crowd was aggressive toward the car driver (and passengers?) . The aggressiveness of the crowd is an important point to make a distinction between someone who is openly carrying a rifle on some type of sling that is pointed towards the ground in general but accidentally paints (Points the rifle at ) A body part of someone that they are passing near.
If someone with a handgun in their hand ran up to my car as part of an aggressive approach and was pointing at my car where it would reasonably intersect the passenger compartment where my legs are I would believe that I am under a significant threat.
If in the circumstance of 2020 no shots were ever fired and no one harmed or killed, I think a case could be made that foster could be charged with at least some type of misdemeanor (felony?) threatening with a firearm as he was pointing at or near Perry.
Overall I would say that our constitutional system has worked out in this circumstance in that a politically motivated conviction (Blue City Austin giving a pass for protesters to break all types of laws without legal fallout
) a separate branch of government was able to correct that by giving a pardon. But it is still at a terrible cost for Perry for the year or more he has probably been behind bars Plus legal burden costs.
Should we amend the saying to “instead of being carried by 6 I would rather be judged by 12 or at least be pardoned by one.”
As a former Army guy who now lives outside of Austin, I followed this pretty closely. I recall that Perry’s previous social media posts were generally allowed into evidence, while some of Foster’s previous activity and military career (and issues) were not. Some of Foster’s fellow protesters were uncomfortable with him carrying his AK and thought he was not of the appropriate mindset or temperament to bring a weapon like that to the protests.
I am a combat vet. That doesn’t make me an expert in self-defense law as Mr Branco or Prof Jacobsen. But I would look at the context a bit more and not just the arguable threat posed by Foster. Can you say “Reginald Denny?” Or the drivers in Seattle/Portland who were dragged out of vehicles and beaten? Drive into a raucous crowd, get surrounded and then out of the crowd comes a guy with an AK. Adrenalin goes way up. Perry had served in Afghanistan — where he’d seen lots of AKs. That standout would get my full attention. A twitch by Mr. Foster or just his repositioning of his AK under the circumstances could reasonably be taken by Mr. Perry as a threat. The eye witnesses were almost exclusively protesters and therefore very sympathetic to Mr. Foster. The video evidence was in my view, inconclusive.
When in doubt the call goes to the defendant.
Having said all that, I can see where in Austin (very much into BLM and defunding police and a supremely activist county DA), the jury rendered a guilty verdict. (The DA is more interested in prosecuting cops than criminals).
I can see the verdict and I can support the pardon.
I agree with all that. But in a “dispassionate” legal analysis, someone like Branca would and maybe did base his argument on the burden of proof shifting regarding evidence of self-defense. Either to preponderance, or reasonable doubt the other way (you must prove you were in danger) or some other flavor, depending on the details of the law in that jurisdiction. I don’t know what it was in this particular case.
I remember that such legal “niceties” were piled one on top of another in the Arbery cases to the point that they were able to convict someone of murder for holding a cellphone camera far away, not that fighting to get your own rifle back should even be in court either.
So you’re usually not supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant on that point. Given that the shooting is not in question, the whole burden of proof in the trial is not the usual one.
Legal arguments are hardly ever airtight or even very solid. Those of us in STEM would think it as more like creative writing than mathematical deduction. Lawyers are usually people with liberal arts degrees, not from disciplines rooted in mathematics, so looking to them for logic and certainty is a good way to get fooled — an art that advocates develop as their primary skill.
A jury should be applying common sense with suitable disregard for the personalities and motives of all the legal personnel in the courtroom, including the lawyer that got promoted to judge.
Branca’s analysis is wrong. He ignores the 2-part murder-conspiracy scheme that BLM perpetrated again and again over “BLM summer.”
One group of protesters would try to block a car. If the driver drove aggressively to try to keep himself from being false imprisoned by surrounding protesters, designated “defenders” would jump in to shoot at the drivers, and this was the situation Perry faced.
Obviously a single person could not jump in front of a car to try to prevent it from proceeding and then, if the car failed to stop, shoot the driver in proclaimed self-defense against being run over.
Using different blockers and shooters in a coordinated manner, as BLM did again and again, is the exact same thing.
Unfortunately, Perry did not base his defense on this explanation, and so he got convicted.
I think that makes the commuted sentence appropriate. If he had made the right defense he should’ve gotten off.