• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Abbott Pardons Man Who Intentionally Murdered BLM Protester

Daniel Perry pardon

This guy is set to be pardoned.
On the narrative in the link below, it seems Perry was looking for an opportunity to defend himself by shooting a protester.
Clearly a story with a way to run.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/co...ng-garrett-foster/XD4MRKAG7VARZIS353S3LDJHS4/

No protesters go near me or my car,” Perry wrote in one of the messages, adding that he “might go to Dallas to shoot looters.

“I might have to kill a few people on my way to work, they are rioting outside my apartment complex,” he said in another post. A commenter asked whether Perry could “legally” do that, to which he replied: “If they attack me or try to pull me out of my car then yes.”
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
Clearly a story with a way to run.
Click to expand...

No chance of that, I'd say. Rittengruber, Zimmerman et al show you can shoot anyone as long as you claim to be threatened by them.

I'm astonished he got convicted.
 
Abbott just pardoned a man who committed premeditated murder of a BLM protester in 2020 signaling to conservatives that openly murdering liberals is acceptable in Texas.

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/16/daniel-perry-greg-abbott-pardon/

“Daniel Perry texted his friends about plans to murder a protester he disagreed with. After a lengthy trial, with an abundance of evidence, 12 impartial Texans determined that he carried out that plan, and murdered my Garrett,” Mitchell said. “With this pardon, the Governor has desecrated the life of a murdered Texan and US Air Force veteran, and impugned that jury’s just verdict. He has declared that Texans who hold political views that are different from his — and different from those in power — can be killed in this State with impunity.”
Click to expand...

He openly says he wants to provoke a confrontation so that he can intentionally murder a protester and then goes and does exactly that.
 
Going by the article. it says that Perry, the shooter, sent a text saying “I might go to Dallas to shoot looters.”

Perry was driving for Uber, he encountered protesters, seemingly by accident? He honked his horn and then drove forward at the crowd.

After that, things seem a bit clouded. Foster, the dead guy, was openly carrying an AK-47, one side says he aimed the gun at Perry, the other says nope, and it was here Perry shot and killed Foster.

Doesn't seem as clear cut as people are making out.
 
no evidence that he raised his gun

RolandRat said:
After that, things seem a bit clouded. Foster, the dead guy, was openly carrying an AK-47, one side says he aimed the gun at Perry, the other says nope, and it was here Perry shot and killed Foster.

Doesn't seem as clear cut as people are making out.
Click to expand...
I am not aware of any witness who says that Mr. Foster raised a gun. Even Mr. Perry implied that he did not, in his initial statement to police. It is arguable that Mr. Perry initiated the conflict, and if so, even if Mr. Foster raised a gun, this would put a serious dent in the claim of self-defense.
 
RolandRat said:
After that, things seem a bit clouded. Foster, the dead guy, was openly carrying an AK-47, one side says he aimed the gun at Perry, the other says nope....
Click to expand...
I thought aiming guns at people was just the way Texans greeted each other.

:boxedin:
 
Chris_Halkides said:
I am not aware of any witness who says that Mr. Foster raised a gun. Even Mr. Perry implied that he did not, in his initial statement to police. It is arguable that Mr. Perry initiated the conflict, and if so, even if Mr. Foster raised a gun, this would put a serious dent in the claim of self-defense.
Click to expand...

I don't know anything about the case, I was just going by the article. Even your comments though are "implies" and "arguable". I think a conviction needs more than that.
 
Bad article. Most is of is spent trying to equate character with action. Lumps looters/rioters and protesters together so comments sound more inflammatory. Positions him as a racist then imbeds the 1 sentence that the victim is also white randomly in the writing. I honestly do not know what happened after reading it.
 
Does anyone think that if a Black man killed a white Oathkeep under the opposite circumstances that Abbott would have pardoned the man?
 
two versions

RolandRat said:
I don't know anything about the case, I was just going by the article. Even your comments though are "implies" and "arguable". I think a conviction needs more than that.
Click to expand...
Radley Balko has a good essay on the case. There is contradictory information; perhaps his story changed with time.

"'I believe he was going to aim at me. I didn't want to give him a chance to aim at me,' Perry told Detective Fugitt in the interview." Fox

"Perry told police in an interview shown in court Monday that he shot Foster in self-defense because Foster lifted his rifle at him." Austin American Statesman.
 
Last edited:
Per the Wikipedia article regarding the case.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Garrett_Foster

Perry had made numerous posts and direct messages on social media where he had expressed his desire to shoot protesters, which, along with contradictory statements to eyewitness accounts, brought into question his claim of self-defense. Following his murder conviction, messages Perry sent of him self-identifying as "a racist" and of him calling black protesters "monkeys" were revealed to the public.[2]
Click to expand...

Perry originally stopped and honked his car horn at the protesters, but later ran a red light and drove his car into the crowd.[5] Garrett Foster, a 28-year old United States Air Force veteran who was legally open carrying an AK-47 walked up to Perry in an attempt to tell him to stop driving into the crowd.[6] After he walked up to Perry's vehicle, Perry shot and killed Foster. Perry claimed self-defense and claimed that Foster had pointed his weapon at him, but eyewitnesses contradicted this account.[7][8]
Click to expand...
Perry had also stated that someone could shoot protesters and get away with it by claiming self-defense. Perry's defense claimed that Texas's stand-your-ground law protected him legally and that he had feared for his life, after the defense alleged that Foster had pointed his weapon at Perry. The prosecution contended that there was no evidence that Foster had pointed his weapon, and other eyewitnesses contradicted this account by the defense. The prosecution also focused on the fact that Foster's weapon was recovered with its safety on and no cartridge in the chamber, so it would not have made sense for him to point his weapon.[13] Jurors were shown footage of Perry's police interrogation, where he said regarding Foster and how Foster held his weapon: "I believe he was going to aim it at me … I didn’t want to give him a chance to aim at me".[9][10]
Click to expand...

And that's why the jury of his peers found him guilty of murder. Not manslaughter, but murder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom