Former US Army sergeant Daniel Perry, an Uber driver, shot and killed US Air Force veteran Garrett Foster at a BLM protest-gone-bad back in 2020. Perry was convicted of murder. Texas governor Greg Abbott wants to pardon Perry, who was most likely acting in self-defense.* If Perry is pardoned, riots may ensue among the low-information crowd.
*Abbott cannot unilaterally pardon Perry. He has merely submitted a request to do so.
READ THIS BEFORE COMMENTING!
All comments are subject to approval before they are published, so they will not appear immediately. Comments should be civil, relevant, and substantive. Anonymous comments are not allowed and will be unceremoniously deleted. For more on my comments policy, please see this entry on my other blog.
AND A NEW RULE (per this post): comments critical of Trump's lying must include criticism of Biden's or Kamala's or some prominent leftie's lying on a one-for-one basis! Failure to be balanced means your comment will not be published.
Andrew Branca is an attorney specializing in firearm law. He was an outspoken defender of Kyle Rittenhouse.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, he says the conviction of Perry was legally sound:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/04/daniel-perrys-murder-conviction-was-legally-sound/
Brian
From the article you linked to:
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
There are, however, stills that do, in fact, show Foster raising his weapon (the technical term is "employed"). If you watch Tim Pool's video, this evidence is shown. Pool's video also talks about (1) exculpatory evidence that was deliberately suppressed, and (2) media manipulation as a way to make Perry appear guiltier in the eyes of the general public (admittedly, this is not necessarily relevant to the trial itself). If you haven't watched Pool's video all the way through, I'd recommend it.
What's interesting is that the article you linked to did, in fact, show the photo I was referring to, in which it's obvious from the angle of his forearm that Foster was indeed pointing his rifle at Perry's car. Legal Insurrection's comment on that photo: "I simply don’t see it." Wow.
ReplyDeleteGranted: the photo doesn't prove the rifle was pointed directly at Perry, but the weapon was in either "low ready" or "high ready" position which, as Tim Pool argues, means a tiny shift in angle is enough to signify a deadly threat, especially since the rifle is already out and employed (i.e., in hand). Add to that the wild crowd situation, the banging on Perry's car by angry demonstrators, and there's ample reason to believe a frightened Perry acted in self-defense.
One thing that authorities in both the US and the UK have been keen to do, over the years, is to make "self-defense," as a concept, something extremely hard to prove, such that anyone defending him- or herself is presumed guilty. The overall message is, "Just let the bad guy kill you. Legally, that's the better option."
I can't trust a legal scholar who outright dismisses obvious evidence. Tim Pool's journalistic take is, in my view, more solid.
The comments after the Legal Insurrection article are also worth a read.
ReplyDelete