I think if you believe an unlawful mob gathering- just on their word - then you are the one that's biased
I have questions about this driver as well - he could be guilty unless we have a camera. We don't know, but because the witness participants cannot be unbiased - we have to have a reasonable doubt that the driver was, indeed in a fearful for his life situation
nope. again, you are taking the word of one person over multiple people who testified under oath. you are taking the word of someone who said they wanted to murder BLM protesters and claim self defense. you are the one who is biased. again, you and abbott are upset that someone whose politics you agree with was held accountable for murdering someone whose politics you disagree with.
so the witnesses can not be unbiased, but the guy who said he wanted to murder BLM protesters and claim self defense is unbiased and trustworthy. again, just shows your own bias.
@jo mama - apparently we're just going to agree to disagree. I am not going to put any validation on a group of unlawful participants as anything remotely close to unbiased witnesses. - This is not because I don't like the politics. This is because it's obvious there is bias among a group that had one of its own in question ... Furthermore, I acknowledge this guy has some?'s on his background. However, we don't know exactly what happened because there was no video footage, and any witnesses could easily be considered biased. - you have to be an idiot to refute that - that's like saying let's depend on the January 6 DC mob to testify on behalf of other Jan 6 people in question- this is beyond stupidity- and I believe this is why Abbott acted properly in the process of pardoning- It is pure logical to put yourself in a fear for your life situation, when surrounded by a mob group that was already armed from multiple persons - let's not forget that one of them started firing at the vehicle in a moments notice putting the drivers life at risk as well as other fellow BLM mob gatherers in the vicinity- clearly this act by that person was not self-defense and rather retaliation- unfortunately no one has come forth on who that person was and somehow these people are supposed to be credible as witnesses? No it doesn't add up
but you put validation on someone who said they wanted to murder BLM protesters and claim self-defense. someone who provoked a confrontation and then murdered someone...thats who you believe. you think that person is unbiased. they testified under oath in a court of law. perry is the only one claiming foster pointed a gun at him...and thats who you believe above everyone else. that is a major understatement. again, you claim they are all biased and liars and you take the word of perry over all of them. you cant see that perry himself was biased and also had multiple statements saying he wanted to murder BLM protesters and claim self-defense. it just shows your own bias. you have to be an idiot to keep ignoring the fact that perry said he wanted to murder BLM protesters and claim self defense, drove into a crowd that was crossing a street and provoked the confrontation. you have to be an idiot to take his word over everyone else there. you have to be an idiot to keep claiming that every person who testified under oath over the murderer himself. and i said on the first page of this thread that that guy is an idiot and we are lucky he didnt hit anyone. but that hardly means that the testimony of all the witnesses is invalid.
I didn't follow the trial and haven't seen a lot of national reporting on this. If the Perry is an uber driver is there evidence that he took that specific route as part of his job? One of the key points here seems to be whether Perry deliberately put him in that position so is there another reason why he was there?
Also given that Perry was tried and convicted by a jury of his peers unless there are grounds for an appeal I don't see why Abbott should be weighing in on this. It seems like he should at least wait to see if there is a legal basis to challenge this decision. And again for people who argue about interference by other branches of government in the Judicial process and putting the finger on the scales of Justice this would be Abbott putting his whole fist on the scales of Justice.
Travis County District Attorney’s Statement Regarding Governor Abbott's Call to Pardon Daniel Perry In a state that believes in upholding the importance of the rule of law, the Governor’s statement that he will intervene in the legal proceedings surrounding the death of Garrett Foster is deeply troubling. In this case, a jury of twelve listened to testimony for nearly two weeks, upending their lives to painstakingly evaluate the evidence and arguments presented by both the State and the Defense. After hearing from civilian eyewitnesses and expert witnesses, and deliberating for over fifteen hours, they reached the unanimous decision that Daniel Perry did not kill Garrett Foster in self- defense and was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. I thank them for their service and want them to know that their service and the service of every juror matters. In our legal system, a jury that gets to decide whether a defendant is guilty or innocent – not the Governor. Make no mistake, without intervention from the Governor, the defendant’s conviction would be reviewed by both state and federal courts who will examine the record to ensure that no legal errors were made at this level and that the evidence supported the conviction. Our constitution has built in protections to ensure that no defendant is convicted when the law or evidence does not support it, and this is a central tenant of our legal system. I want to thank the Foster family. I want them to know that the Travis County District Attorney’s office will continue to fight for a justice system that treats everyone equally, including Garrett Foster. I know how long they have waited for justice for Garrett and their family. I can imagine that justice must feel so elusive for them and right now, and for that, I am more sorry than words can express. The proceedings in the case of the State of Texas v. Perry are not yet concluded. Tomorrow morning, Criminal District Judge Clifford Brown will set a date for the sentencing hearing. At that the sentencing hearing, the Judge will be able to consider and evaluate additional evidence before sentencing Mr. Perry for the crime he committed. As this process continues, the Travis County District Attorney’s office will continue to fight to uphold the rule of law and to hold accountable people who commit acts of gun violence in our community. - Travis County District Attorney José Garza
