stay the hell out of blue cities a blue city jury will convict anyone they don't like of anything, regardless of the facts Gov. Abbot must issue an immediate pardon.
most large cities are "blue". dude drove from killeen to a BLM protest in downtown austin with the intent to kill someone...the texts are there to prove it. he wanted to kill someone and he did. he is a murderer and was rightly convicted.
This claim – that Foster raised the barrel of his AK-47 – is, of course, Perry's principal hope to escape a murder conviction. It was refuted over and over during the first three days of the trial by witnesses who were near Foster that night. All repeated a version of the same story: They heard squealing tires as a car sped into a group of about 20 protesters. The protesters, some of whom had almost been hit by the car, slapped and kicked it. Garrett Foster strode to the car's side and issued an order to the driver. All of the witnesses insisted that Foster did not raise the barrel of his gun. According to the D.A.'s lead prosecutor, Guillermo Gonzalez, his gun was recovered with the safety still on and no bullet in the chamber. "I might have to kill a few people on my way to work, they are rioting outside my apartment complex," Perry wrote to a friend in June of 2020. "I might go to Dallas to shoot looters," he wrote on another occasion. Perry also encouraged violence in a variety of social media posts. In addition, Perry speculated about how he might get away with such a killing – by claiming self-defense, as he is now doing. Prosecutors presented a Facebook Messenger chat between Perry and a friend, Michael Holcomb, which occurred two weeks before he shot Foster. In it, Perry argued that shooting protesters was legal if it was in self-defense. Holcomb, who was called to the stand Wednesday afternoon, seemed to try to talk Perry down. "Aren't you a CDL holder too?" he asked, referring to the men's licenses to carry concealed handguns. "We went through the same training ... Shooting after creating an event where you have to shoot, is not a good shoot." https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2023-04-07/might-have-to-kill-a-few-people/
perry was crying like a little b**** when the verdict was read. hes not so tough now, is he? https://www.kvue.com/article/news/c...dict/269-b554d558-6f17-4607-86af-dbcc9d246a83
I don't think the texts are as relevant as people want them to be. If they were, Perry would have shot more than the only person brandishing a firearm at him. The jury has essentially legalized brandishing.
That's propensity evidence and usually isn't admitted. Was it admitted in this case? https://www.everydayevidence.org/post/propensity-evidence-and-its-perils
i think the texts and his chats with his friend (who tried to talk some sense into him) are 100% relevant. it shows that he had a premeditated desire to kill a BLM protestor. i disagree with that take...imo, it is proof that he was looking for justification to shoot someone. he couldnt just shoot some random person...he needed justification and when he saw a guy with an ak-47 he saw his opportunity to kill and claim self defense. again, perry drove his car into a crowd...he was looking for a confrontation. what is your definition of brandishing? there were no witnesses who corroborated perrys claim that his victim was pointing a weapon at him. foster wasnt breaking any laws by walking around with an ak-47. if you want to make the argument that citizens should not be allowed to carry weapons like that around (or own them) then im all ears, but foster was within his rights. also, im having a hard time understanding how the shooting actually went down. perry claims foster was pointing a riffle at him. but we are supposed to believe that he had time to get his gun, aim and fire...all while he had an ak-47 pointed at him? it makes no sense. my guess is that he either had the gun in his hand ready to shoot or at least it was in his lap. again, he drove to austin looking to start something so he could shoot someone and claim self-defense. he drove into a crowd (that is a fact)...based on his texts its obvious he was looking to start a confrontation so he could kill someone and thats exactly what he did. he is a straight up murderer.
this is what your link says about propensity evidence... "Proof that a defendant has been guilty of another crime equally heinous prompts to a ready acceptance of and belief in the prosecution's theory that he is guilty of the crime charged. Its effect is to predispose the mind of the juror to believe the prisoner guilty, and thus effectually to strip him of the presumption of innocence.[1] " i dont think his texts/chats meet that definition. to me it is proof of premeditated desire to murder a BLM protestor. either way, i pretty sure his texts and social media chats with his friend were admitted. it seems like thats what convinced the jury in the end.
So in your opinion if someone robbed a store before and had some texts saying he may need to rob a store two weeks ago thats relevant to his trial?
if someone is on trial for robbing a store and there are texts from prior to the robbery saying that he is going to rob a store then i cant see how that isnt relevant. again, perry texted and chatted with people about how he wanted to kill BLM protestors and claim self defense. then he drove 100 miles to austin, drove his car into a crowd of people and killed one of them. how is that not relevant???
It's character evidence that can make a link without using any facts of the event. It's was historically used to just pick up local thugs whenever a bad thing happened, present to the court this guy is a local thug with a bad character and convict. If you want criminal justice reform it probably needs to die.
me and the jury disagree with your take here. again, his texts are directly relevant to this case. he texted about wanting to start a confrontation so he could kill BLM protestors and then claim self-defense. thats exactly what he did. it shows that the killing was premeditated. i dont see how anyone could argue otherwise. your example of "local thugs being picked up whenever a bad thing happens" is a totally different scenario. there is no similarity b/t what youre describing and this incident.
Jury decides facts, not what evidence is relevant or allowed. Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. I agree in some cases it seems more relevant than others, but painting someone as a criminal removes presumption of innocence the court is supposed to have.
They were discussing hypotheticals when it would be legal to use a firearm when confronted by a mob of protesters. Similar discussions of legal firearm use happen in CHL classes. If someone took a CHL class and found themself shooting another, is that evidence that they premeditated murder? He was an Uber driver navigating through the streets where a protest was occurring. Upon arriving to the intersection, he sees protesters marching to his left. He can't cross the crowd, so he tries to go right in the opposite direction of the crowd but there are protesters blocking the lanes of both directions. Bad decision, but plausible he was trying to find an escape route from the gridlock. I understand open carry is perfectly legal. But Foster is part of the angry mob that's banging on Perry's windows, is directly at Perry's driver side window with an AK47, any reasonable person would find that threatening and brandishing. Foster had his AK47 in ready position. It's debated whether or not he pointed it at Perry, which you have a bunch of biased witnesses. If you're not threatened by that, you got more balls than me. Keep in mind that any discussions here can and will be used against you in court. For the record, can anyone clarify the statute of limitations to how far back is relevant?
again, he expressed a desire to go to BLM protestors and murder people and use self-defense as an excuse to get away with it. imo, it ceases to be a hypothetical when you actually carry out what you said you wanted to do. or course not, and that is not what happened at all in this case. but since you brought up CHL class, there are messages from his friend two weeks before the murder specifically stating that they learned in CHL class that you cant provoke confrontations in order to shoot someone. why was he the only driver who felt the need to drive into a crowd like that? its because he was looking for a confrontation. he admitted thats what he wanted to do. he wanted a confrontation so he could shoot a BLM protestor. its all in his texts and chat messages, which is why the jury found them relevant. also, if he was "trying to find an escape route from the gridlock" he could have simply continued driving south on congress and out of the protests...but thats not what he did. he chose to drive into a group of protestors. ive seen that photo and its difficult to tell if he is pointing it at the driver. and i still dont understand how the shooter was able to get his gun, point and shoot at someone who is pointing an AK-47 at him. how many seconds went by in that encounter? the only way it makes sense is if he already had his gun in hand when he turned or at the least had it in his lap. i suspect he had it in his hand ready to shoot and when he sees a guy with an AK-47 he decided that was his opportunity to shoot someone and claim self-defense. and you call them a bunch of biased witnesses, but the only person who said foster pointed the AK at the driver was the driver themself, who is obviously very, very biased and also had a stated desire to murder BLM protestors. of course i would find that threatening...seems like perry didnt. he was able to reach for his gun, point and shoot someone who (allegedly) had an AK-47 pointed at him. perry must have the quick-draw skills and raw nerve of an old west gunslinger to be able to pull that off. if i ever do what perry did i would expect to be convicted of murder.
again, the texts and chat messages are not evidence of a crime...they are proof that he wanted to provoke a confrontation with BLM protestors in order to kill one of them and claim self-defense, which is exactly what he ended up doing.
