Merged Abbott Pardons Man Who Intentionally Murdered BLM Protester

[kookbreaker]

Good grief, talk about leaving out key information. You forgot to mention that the BLM "protestor" was carrying an AK-47 and pointed it at Perry, which is why Perry, understandably, began firing at him. What in the devil was that "protestor" doing carrying an AK-47? Huh? What would you do if you were in a car and someone raised their AK-47 and pointed it straight at you? Wait to see if they shoot you?

Do you ever get tired of being a clownshoe? Read the thread already. You'll see the evidence of the AK being pointed at Perry is nonexistant. Stop getting your info from right-wing psychopath sites.

You guys scream against assault rifles, but when a BLM rioter brings one to a "protest," I guess you're okay with that.

Again, read the thread. You missed several people having issues with it.

Try, just try to not be a low-information poster. For once.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Do you ever get tired of being a clownshoe? Read the thread already. You'll see the evidence of the AK being pointed at Perry is nonexistant. Stop getting your info from right-wing psychopath sites.

"Right-wing psychopath sites"??? Well, gee, I got that information from an ABC news site. Let me quote from the article I read:

Foster was openly carrying an AK-47 rifle at the time, and during the trial, each side presented conflicting accounts as to whether the protester raised the gun to Perry, who was also legally armed. Perry shot Foster and then fled the area, police said. He then called the police and reported what happened, claiming he shot in self-defense after Foster aimed his weapon at him. (https://abc13.com/post/gov-greg-abb...tt-foster-during-austin-blm-protest/14827772/)

And let me repeat some other facts: Yes, the "protestors" who testified at the trial denied that Foster pointed his rifle at Perry, but those same witnesses also falsely claimed that Perry sped into the crowd, whereas tracking data proved this was a lie. In fact, protestors surrounded Perry's car In Perry's panicked 911 call, he mentioned that a man had pointed a rifle at him. Fron his 911 call:

“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 was correct: someone in the crowd fired three shots at his car, but missed him. This means that another one of the "peaceful protestors" was armed, since Foster did not fire a shot.

Any rational person will understand that Perry was very frightened when the BLM folks surrounded his car. Why did they do that? Huh? Just to say "hi"? They were probably about to do to his car what they did to so many other cars: inflict considerable damage on it--just because.

Again, read the thread. You missed several people having issues with it.

Oh, give me a break. That's a phony dodge. If the roles had been reversed, liberals would be universally condemning the open carrying of an AK-47 at a protest. Shemp said nothing about it in his OP. Most of the liberals herein have said nothing about it.

Try, just try to not be a low-information poster. For once.

I'm not the low-information poster here. Perhaps if you would read something other than liberal sources, you would be more informed on issues.

 

[kookbreaker]

"Right-wing psychopath sites"??? Well, gee, I got that information from an ABC news site. Let me quote from the article I read:

Foster was openly carrying an AK-47 rifle at the time, and during the trial, each side presented conflicting accounts as to whether the protester raised the gun to Perry, who was also legally armed. Perry shot Foster and then fled the area, police said. He then called the police and reported what happened, claiming he shot in self-defense after Foster aimed his weapon at him. (https://abc13.com/post/gov-greg-abb...tt-foster-during-austin-blm-protest/14827772/)

And let me repeat some other facts: Yes, the "protestors" who testified at the trial denied that Foster pointed his rifle at Perry, but those same witnesses also falsely claimed that Perry sped into the crowd, whereas tracking data proved this was a lie. In fact, protestors surrounded Perry's car In Perry's panicked 911 call, he mentioned that a man had pointed a rifle at him. Fron his 911 call:

So again, the only source of the AK being pointed at Perry is Perry. You try to denigrate the other witnesses by saying they lie, but then your sources for this suddenly dry up and its only Perry.

Meanwhile, outside of Perry's fantasyland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Garrett_Foster

On July 25, 2020, Daniel Perry, a then-30-year old United States Army sergeant, had been working his Uber shift when he encountered a protest against police brutality that was blocking the road. 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]

Yeah, his claims in his 911 call ring hollow.

“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 was correct: someone in the crowd fired three shots at his car, but missed him. This means that another one of the "peaceful protestors" was armed, since Foster did not fire a shot.

Again, the source for this is Perry.

Meanwhile when interviewed by police:

When Perry was interviewed by police about what happened before the shooting and how Foster held his gun, Perry said: "I believe he was going to aim it at me … I didn’t want to give him a chance to aim at me, you know."

You seem to just take any right-wingers and word on events but ignore when they contradict it.

Any rational person will understand that Perry was very frightened when the BLM folks surrounded his car. Why did they do that? Huh? Just to say "hi"? They were probably about to do to his car what they did to so many other cars: inflict considerable damage on it--just because.

Perry honked at the crowd then ran a red light drive into them. Then were supposed to feel sorry for him?

I'm not the low-information poster here.

You decidedly are. Your sources are entirely Perry's post police interview accounts, you claim things like shots being fired at his car with zero evidence beside Perry. You fail again on every level.

Perhaps if you would read something other than liberal sources, you would be more informed on issues.

You mean I'd fall for Perry's sanitized for murder account of events?

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Most racists do think themselves 'bold truth tellers'. How else would they think of themselves? As cowardly liars?

The point I was refuting was that he called himself a racist, as in proudly proclaiming it. If we have a conversation about something and you say I hate black people because i said I believe in longer prison sentences, and I respond by saying "I hate black people because i believe in longer prison sentences apparently" that is not me admitting to hating black people.

Technically, you're correct; Perry never said, "I'm a racist." But I think Perry makes it quite clear from his other statements that he is, if fact, a racist. Whether he admits that to himself, only he knows. People have a unique ability to deceive themselves regarding who and what they really are as in a racist seeing himself as a "bold truth teller."

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
If you had looked at the link I provided, which is what I read, you'd have seen that the sentences* you claim I "cut off" were not included:

And again, this is literally what I am pointing out when I complain about the articles but for some reason I keep getting push back. I had to go to the source just to get the actual text.

And again, you wrongly accused me of 'cutting off' sentences which is what I was pointing out.

This is all from the exact same conversation. Here is the complete thing.

:
DANIEL PERRY: I might have to kill a few people on my way to work they are rioting outside my apartment complex.
JUSTIN SMITH: Can you legally do so?
DANIEL PERRY: If they attack me or try to pull me out my car then yes.
DANIEL PERRY: If I just do it because I am driving by then no.
JUSTIN SMITH: yea right lol
JUSTIN SMITH: make sure to use only | shot on the protestor so i f they try to flood you, You got enough rounds for them all.
DANIEL PERRY: I will only shoot the ones in front and push the pedal to the metal.JUSTIN SMITH: You got that much control over your blood tust?
JUSTIN SMITH: Lol boy have you matured. All you would beat the **** out of
them then rape a few.
DANIEL PERRY: Look I would probably barely have ammo left over with this
tactic I have to conserve my ammo for the trip back to home
JUSTIN SMITH: Get a bigger clip lol
DANIEL PERRY: It is not about the clip I only have 150 rounds
JUSTIN SMITH: Lol your fiiinnnneee
DANIEL PERRY: Dude I need to save ammo for when I go up to Dallas to visit you.
DANIEL PERRY: There are at least a thousand rioters and they probably have
guns.
JUSTIN SMITH: What will be the turnout you think
DANIEL PERRY: No protestors go near me or my car JUSTIN SMITH: Can you catch me a negro daddy DANIEL PERRY: That is what I am hopingJUSTIN SMITH: Yayy

Not a good person. Still clearly talking about rioters and people being violent.

What part of "protestors" are you not understanding? Perry is using "protestors", "looters" and "rioters" interchangeably. He sees them as the same people and is not making any distinction between them. That is supported by his June 1, 2020 social media comment that

"Am I raciest for thinking the way the black lives matter movement is like a bunch of monkeys flinging **** at a zoo"

In April 2020, he sent a meme, which included a photo of a woman holding her child’s head under water in the bath, with the text, “WHEN YOUR DAUGHTERS FIRST CRUSH IS A LITTLE NEGRO BOY,”

Why do you insist on quibbling over whether Perry actually said, "I'm a racist" or not when it's abundantly clear he is by his very own words and actions?

I don't know why it is important to distort his messages. Can you explain why journalists are omitting text and quoting portions that cut off the words rioters/looters and generalizing as protesters?

Because Perry's messages were not being distorted by omitting those two sentences as I've already explained and shown by his use of "protestors" interchangeably with "looters and rioters".

Abbott's pardon of Perry, imo, is purely a political move to please and cater to a certain element of his supporters.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

What fantasy. Don't agree with me, not really an issue. But I am showing plainly what I take issue with and giving direct evidence from the source. There is nothing fantastical about it.

You dismiss everybody who disagrees with you. That's a you problem, not an us problem.

 

[Stacyhs]

Good grief, talk about leaving out key information. You forgot to mention that the BLM "protestor" was carrying an AK-47 and pointed it at Perry, which is why Perry, understandably, began firing at him. What in the devil was that "protestor" doing carrying an AK-47? Huh? What would you do if you were in a car and someone raised their AK-47 and pointed it straight at you? Wait to see if they shoot you?

What you ignore is that this wasn't Perry's first rodeo when it came to carrying his AK-47 at protests which indicates this guy wasn't just someone who had to innocently go to work that night. He had a history of putting himself in situations and carrying his AK-47 in a confrontational manner.

As jurors try to determine whether Austin protester Garrett Foster was pointing his rifle at Uber driver Daniel Perry before he killed Foster, a police officer testified he had seen officers warn Foster at previous protests that he was carrying his rifle in a dangerous manner.
Senior Austin officer Brent Cleveland said during Perry's trial late Thursday that Foster was "visibly and verbally not receptive" to the police criticism. Cleveland said he never spoke to Foster but had seen him carry an AK-47 in a strap slung with the barrel pointed down in previous protests. He told jurors that if Perry had raised the barrel even a small amount, it could be considered threatening.

https://www.statesman.com/story/new...-victim-warned-way-carried-rifle/70066884007/

Perry's own words proved he was lying when he said in his 911 call that

"I made a wrong turn, and I panicked," he said. He said he didn't know there were protesters downtown.

DANIEL PERRY: I might have to kill a few people on my way to work they are rioting outside my apartment complex.JUSTIN SMITH: Can you legally do so?
DANIEL PERRY: If they attack me or try to pull me out my car then yes.
DANIEL PERRY: If I just do it because I am driving by then no.

Perry was looking for a confrontation and he knew he could use the "self-defense" claim which he attempted to make more credible with this statement to the police that night:

"I didn't know he was going to aim it at me," Perry said. "I thought he was going to kill me. ... I've never been so scared in my life, and I've been to Afghanistan."

However:

Another witness, Lyric Costley, said he also saw Perry inside the car before the shooting.

Could you see his face?" prosecutor Efrain De La Fuente asked Costley. Costley said he could. "His expression …anger was the best I could use to describe that," Costley said. "It wasn't fear."

Anyone concerned about their safety due to the "rioting outside [their] apartment" would have just stayed home. He was a ride-share driver, for God's sake, not a surgeon scheduled to work the ER that night.

You guys scream against assault rifles, but when a BLM rioter brings one to a "protest," I guess you're okay with that.

This is another one of those statements you make that undermines your credibility. No one has ever said any such thing. In fact, I said this in this very thread:

It still disgusts me that a civilian can legally open carry an AK-47.

I can find no witness who testified Foster pointed his gun at Perry. Can you? Other witnesses said he did not.

Another witness took the stand Thursday to clarify his position on whether he had seen Foster point his rifle at Perry. Lyric Costley demonstrated how Foster carried the AK-47 to the jury. He said the “low ready” position had Foster holding the rifle across his chest, parallel to the ground.
Previously, court records show he told Austin police that Foster had pointed the weapon at Perry. During Thursday’s testimony, that recollection changed. “Do you know if Garrett Foster ever pointed that rifle at the driver,” asked a prosecutor in the case. “I do not know,” said Costley.

https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/wi...testor-was-shot-and-killed-in-downtown-austin

 

[acbytesla]

So again, the only source of the AK being pointed at Perry is Perry. You try to denigrate the other witnesses by saying they lie, but then your sources for this suddenly dry up and its only Perry.

Meanwhile, outside of Perry's fantasyland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Garrett_Foster

Yeah, his claims in his 911 call ring hollow.

Again, the source for this is Perry.

Meanwhile when interviewed by police:

You seem to just take any right-wingers and word on events but ignore when they contradict it.

Perry honked at the crowd then ran a red light drive into them. Then were supposed to feel sorry for him?

You decidedly are. Your sources are entirely Perry's post police interview accounts, you claim things like shots being fired at his car with zero evidence beside Perry. You fail again on every level.

You mean I'd fall for Perry's sanitized for murder account of events?

Can you say cognitive bias?

I appreciate Mike posting the additional information. But the additional information doesn't offer exculpatory evidence.

I have a question for Mike. Where are his posts defending people of color? There are significantly more questionable arrests and prosecutions of people of color.

 

[rdwight]

You can to me. But I'm unconvinced that he was. It doesn't seem obvious to me. He might not be a member of the Klan, but he definitely sounds like someone who has turned against people of color. There are definitely undertones of bigotry in his posts. Anyone who would compare people of color to monkeys flinging their poop. I also don't think anyone joking about killing people and then proceeding to do just that had to be telling a funny.

Yes he does. He doesn't sound like Byron De La Beckwith. More like Archie Bunker.
I didn't. I hadn't read all that. Yes, that doesn't soften his appearance somewhat.
Granted

Yes, journalists shouldn't be mouthpieces for the prosecution. I am hypersensitive to African Americans getting the short end of the stick. Being shot at and being killed at numbers absurdly high. And every time a white person kills a person of color, they become a cause celebre for the far right.

We saw Kyle Rittenhouse commit murder and walk. Now this. I can't help but wonder if we can expect the Georgia Governor pardoning the killers of Ahmaud Arbery.

Sorry about skipping over this, i acknowledged it personally but didnt address it which is ****** on a forum when you went out of your way to respond. I don't agree on the idea AA are killed at absurdly high numbers. If you want to argue on the research of Roland Fryer I would be happy to contribute. I don't really feel the need to argue if this guy is racist or not, just the facts as they are reported. I've conceded as much. I just do not think there is any foundation for assuming guilt based on that specific accusation.

 

[rdwight]

Technically, you're correct; Perry never said, "I'm a racist." But I think Perry makes it quite clear from his other statements that he is, if fact, a racist. Whether he admits that to himself, only he knows. People have a unique ability to deceive themselves regarding who and what they really are as in a racist seeing himself as a "bold truth teller."

Agreed.

And again, you wrongly accused me of 'cutting off' sentences which is what I was pointing out.

I am complaining about journalists cutting off quotes and adding their own interpretation. You are literally using those articles to plead your case. And complaining that I point that out. If I say you use sources that do that, but you didnt personally do so, can we move the conversation forward?

What part of "protestors" are you not understanding? Perry is using "protestors", "looters" and "rioters" interchangeably. He sees them as the same people and is not making any distinction between them. That is supported by his June 1, 2020 social media comment that

Why can't you answer my direct question? This is not a gotcha. I am literally asking why it is important that the distinction is deliberately changed. If his words are so obvious, again, why are they misrepresented.

Why do you insist on quibbling over whether Perry actually said, "I'm a racist" or not when it's abundantly clear he is by his very own words and actions?

Because you can't just say you opinions as if they represent facts. I believe he's racist. That doesn't mean you can just misrepresent his words to make your point. If they are so obvious, they should be represented as said. That way, the reader is allowed to view and make their own interpretation. I don't even have an issue with a slanted view. Just lies by omission and misrepresentation.

Because Perry's messages were not being distorted by omitting those two sentences as I've already explained and shown by his use of "protestors" interchangeably with "looters and rioters".

According to you. What, specifically, is lost by stating them exactly as they were said. I can't stress this enough. Why if it is so obvious, must it be misrepresented.

 

[acbytesla]

Sorry about skipping over this, i acknowledged it personally but didnt address it which is ****** on a forum when you went out of your way to respond. I don't agree on the idea AA are killed at absurdly high numbers. If you want to argue on the research of Roland Fryer I would be happy to contribute. I don't really feel the need to argue if this guy is racist or not, just the facts as they are reported. I've conceded as much. I just do not think there is any foundation for assuming guilt based on that specific accusation.

In 2022, the FBI reported that there were 10,470 Black murder victims in the United States and 7,704 White murder victims. In comparison, there were 454 murder victims of unknown race and 568 victims of another race.
And considering the percentage of whites in the population is 5 times higher than that of blacks. The murder rate among African Americans is 8 times that of whites.

 

[Ron Obvious]

In 2022, the FBI reported that there were 10,470 Black murder victims in the United States and 7,704 White murder victims. In comparison, there were 454 murder victims of unknown race and 568 victims of another race.
And considering the percentage of whites in the population is 5 times higher than that of blacks. The murder rate among African Americans is 8 times that of whites.

And the vast majority of those African Americans are murdered by other African Americans. For some reason that particular fact is usually omitted in these discussions. Racist whites murdering blacks is extraordinarily rare, but that's not the impression that's (intentionally?) being created when that fact is left off.

It's dishonest.

 

[acbytesla]

And the vast majority of those African Americans are murdered by other African Americans. For some reason that particular fact is usually omitted in these discussions. Racist whites murdering blacks is extraordinarily rare, but that's not the impression that's (intentionally?) being created when that fact is left off.

It's dishonest.

I didn't say they weren't. What I said was that every time I white person kills a black person they become a cause celebre for the far right.

 

[Stacyhs]

Agreed.




I am complaining about journalists cutting off quotes and adding their own interpretation. You are literally using those articles to plead your case. And complaining that I point that out. If I say you use sources that do that, but you didnt personally do so, can we move the conversation forward?




Why can't you answer my direct question? This is not a gotcha. I am literally asking why it is important that the distinction is deliberately changed. If his words are so obvious, again, why are they misrepresented.





Because you can't just say you opinions as if they represent facts. I believe he's racist. That doesn't mean you can just misrepresent his words to make your point. If they are so obvious, they should be represented as said. That way, the reader is allowed to view and make their own interpretation. I don't even have an issue with a slanted view. Just lies by omission and misrepresentation.



According to you. What, specifically, is lost by stating them exactly as they were said. I can't stress this enough. Why if it is so obvious, must it be misrepresented.

What we are disagreeing about is if it was misrepresented. You say it was; I say leaving out that first couple of sentences did not change the essence of what Perry was saying. With them or without, he was making clear that he equated the protesters with looters and rioters; they were one and the same to him. If you read it otherwise, there's nothing more I can say than what I already have.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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/



He openly says he wants to provoke a confrontation so that he can intentionally murder a protester and then goes and does exactly that.

Lynching is back in texas, baby!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

How the pardon came about

Governor Abbott asked the board for Mr. Perry's case to be expedited, and he indicated that he would pardon Mr. Perry. He did these things without knowing what the results of their investigation/deliberation would be. In other words, he prejudged the case. Even if I thought that a pardon were appropriate, I would have problems with the way it happened.

Apart from this problem, I still have almost no idea what the board put forward as grounds for the pardon. Governor Abbott's explanation made no sense to me before (as noted upthread), and time has not improved it.

 

[RolandRat]

What you ignore is that this wasn't Perry's first rodeo when it came to carrying his AK-47 at protests which indicates this guy wasn't just someone who had to innocently go to work that night. He had a history of putting himself in situations and carrying his AK-47 in a confrontational manner.

It was Foster carrying the AK

 

[Stacyhs]

It was Foster carrying the AK

Oops...you're correct. But why did the officer also say "Senior Austin officer Brent Cleveland said during Perry's trial late Thursday that Foster was "visibly and verbally not receptive" to the police criticism. Cleveland said he never spoke to Foster but had seen him carry an AK-47 in a strap slung with the barrel pointed down in previous protests. He told jurors that if Perry had raised the barrel even a small amount, it could be considered threatening.
That's confusing since he was talking about Foster's gun.

 

[RolandRat]

I'd guess that's a reporting error. As you pointed out, the officer was clearly talking about Foster and his weapon.

 

[Stacyhs]

I'd guess that's a reporting error. As you pointed out, the officer was clearly talking about Foster and his weapon.

That's likely what happened as this also reported:

AK-47 rifle bullets can penetrate car doors and police vests, Cleveland said. The officer testified that if he had encountered someone with an AK-47 who was carrying the rifle slung down like Foster was, and that person raised the barrel slightly, then he would shoot them.

Small comfort that I'm not the only one to conflate Perry and Foster!

 

[ZiprHead]

It was Foster carrying the AK

Carrying, not brandishing.