the board of pardons is picked by the governor so looks like the murderer will be pardoned. there is no 'stand your ground' justification here. lets review the FACTS. daniel perry said multiple times that he wanted to murder BLM protestors and then claim self-defense. he drove from killeen to austin and then drove into a crowd of protestors. there were no witnesses to corroborate perrys claim that foster was pointing a weapon at him. perry killed that guy on purpose. that was what he wanted to do. what abbot has done is beyond the pale. and the only reason he is doing this is because of politics. if it was a BLM protestor who did this there is no way he would pardon him. and now some of yall are going to hold daniel perry up as a hero like kyle rittenhouse...lets be clear...the only reason you like them is because they killed people whose politics you dont like. despicable.
Loving the pardon, don’t point your AK47 while mobs surround a car …complete self defense situation vindication!
Wow, the Texas governor is urgently pardoning a murderer who was convicted by a jury of peers in less than one day. JFC. I feel for the family. Justice is being yanked away by a politician apparantly influenced by Tucker Carlson.
Point your AK47 where exactly? Clearly the jury looked at the evidence and came to the conclusion that the AK47 wasn't pointed in a threatening manner.
Except the jury unanimously rejected the claim of self-defense and found him guilty of murder. The correct process, as the defense had planned, is to appeal, not to have a politician subvert the justice process for political gain. Abbott is not even allowing the appeal process to play out. SMFH.
Let's just say If there was video I would be more understanding , but you get a mob of blm hooligans illegally blocking right of way car traffic stopping someone converging on a car , hitting the car, shouting and expect the driver not to be on edge ? Why wouldn't they be - we seen the attacks on cars recorded- we seen what BLM mobs do lol - plus I'm not accepting BLM law breakers that impeded roads testimony of one of their own the ak47 wielding idiot is dead - good and good on the pardon in process-
There was similar case to this in Minneapolis from 2017 involving a BLM protest at the 4th precinct. A 24 year old man who lived in the suburbs of Minneapolis drive to the protest armed. They then fled the protests after they were chased by several protesters. One of them shot 5 of the protesters. He was convicted on the basis that he had gone on social media specifically stating he was going to go to the protest to cause trouble. That definitely mirror this case and throws the self defense argument into doubt if you specifically go looking for trouble. This is an argument I’ve brought up frequently and why things like being a vigilante is a bad idea. To add one more thingS this is also why it’s a bad idea for a person to show up at a protest open carrying. While I agree with this ruling it wasn’t a good idea for the victim to have been carrying an AK47 to a protest. For all sides this is another example of the dangerous obsession out culture has with firearms.
Keen observation…. Since the prosecutor successfully argued for it then the jury got to see how the defendant was already talking about how to murder a BLM protester and get away with it.
Let’s just say… you shouldn’t leave an electronic record of how you’d get away with murder and just happen to find yourself confronted (through your own actions) with the individuals you said you’d murder…
of course you are loving the pardon. you love that a right winger was able to murder a BLM protestor and the governor will let him get away with it. there is no proof of any kind of self-defense or stand your ground situation. none. the only person who claims foster was pointing his rifle at perry is perry himself. no witnesses at the trial said he did. and before you claim the witnesses are biased like others here have done ill point out that perry himself is very, very biased. and that he had multiple statements saying he wanted to murder BLM protestors and claim self-defense, which is exactly what he ended up doing. what abbott is doing here is despicable and 100% based on partisanship/politics. its pathetic.
This is a case of 2 idiots, both involving guns. Both also exercising their right to carry and clearly didn’t end up good. I don’t know how I feel about who is in the wrong because it can be presented both ways. where I draw the line is the framing of Perry like he is some innocent guy walking around “surrounded by a mob” foster was walking his amputee wife in her wheelchair. If anybody deserves to carry an automatic there by yalls logicnits him. The claim he “pointed it” has been dismissed by witnesses right? What is happening is circumventing the due process abuse of pardon power. And so easily. I’m embarrassed, Abbott is an evil evil man my friend. Talks about Christ, but is far far from being somebody that embodies his teachings
you and abbott and all the other right wingers are taking the word of the murderer over everyone else. taking the word of someone who explicitly said they wanted to murder BLM protestors over everyone who testified at trial. perry turned right on a red light directly into a crowd. that is a fact. he had multiple texts/tweets/chat messages saying he wanted to provoke a confrontation so he could murder a BLM protestor. that is also a fact. also, nobody has been able to explain to me how someone who has an AK-47 pointed at them could get their gun, point and shoot it at the person. it makes no sense unless he already had his gun in hand and ready to shoot. but you believe the testimony of the guy who said multiple times that he wanted to murder BLM protestors and is the only one claiming that foster was pointing an AK at him. nobody else would corroborate that claim. all that does is prove your bias...again, you and abbott dont like that someone whose politics you agree with was held accountable for murdering someone whose politics you disagree with.
The problem I have is the supposed witnesses are all in the same BLM bunch that were acting unlawfully blocking traffic plus showing hostile actions ...it's unfortunate we don't have video footage such as Rittenhouse that vindicated his self defense- this is a very difficult case to prove one way or the other regardless, I do admit that it's more of a situation of one person versus a unruly mob group - now this driver may have been simply trying to earn extra money, but there is indications he also had some temper issues... so he was probably a little bit sketchy as well. Both parties had sketchy paint on themselves - but if I had to excuse which one gets the pass it would be the driver - the BLM mob group could have "mostly" peaceful protested while allowing cars to make way and proceed...
Also let's not forget this BLM group was very quick to engage in lethal action - after the shooting someone from the group started putting rounds into the vehicle, not only threatening the person in the vehicle, but also other by-standers-as well this BLM group was charged up and ready for action and was obviously hostile by engaging vehicles- as far as the explanation that the driver drove towards the crowd - no he's driving on the roads working Uber - he's trying to do the right thing by earning some money to support his livelihood- it is completely logical to surmise that had the unlawful mob bunch allowed safe passage of vehicles unimpeded there would consequently be no incident in the first place -
and they testified under oath at trial that they didnt see foster pointing his AK-47 at perry. again, the only person making that claim is perry...someone who had multiple statements saying they wanted to provoke a confrontation so they could murder a BLM protestor. that is the person who you believe above everyone else. again, it just shows your bias. the BLM mob as you call them was crossing the street. perry had a red light and turned on that red light directly into the "BLM mob". he is the one who provoked the confrontation.
"this BLM group was very quick to engage in lethal action"? this statement again shows your bias. one idiot shot at perry after perry murdered foster. that hardly equates to "this BLM group was very quick to engage in lethal action". they engaged a vehicle that drove directly into them as they were crossing the street. it was perry who was obviously hostile by driving into them in the first place. and his multitude of texts/tweets prove that he did it in order to murder a BLM protestor and claim self-defense. you are being really dishonest here. yes he was working for uber and yes he drove into the crowd. both statements can be true. its also true that he came to austin with the intent of provoking a confrontation so he could murder a BLM protestor, which is exactly what he ended up doing. for the umpteenth time, he turned right on a red directly into a crowd. why was he the only driver who did this?
it comes down to words of an unlawful mob bunch vs a driver - again I sure wish there was a video that would validate the situation such as it did with Rittenhouse, and which he was completely exonerated and proven as such - without that video, we don't know one way or the other Abbot made the right call - an unlawful mob cannot be collectively unbiased - it's like Jan 6 mob bunch testifying on behalf of one of their own - give me a nonparticipant in the unlawful BLM mob situation- the problem is no one was close enough to see the situation besides the collective mob and the driver - at this point if you are pro BLM you're going to believe them without a doubt so it's pretty much based on your political position on who you believe unfortunately we need video cameras like London no doubt
you believe someone who said multiple times that they wanted to murder a BLM protester and then claim self-defense over every single witness who testified under oath. again, perry is the only one who claimed foster was pointing an AK at him. and not one single person has been able to explain how perry could so quickly get his weapon, point and shoot at someone who had an AK pointed at him. youre being very dishonest with the way youre framing this. you keep saying "unlawful mob" vs "a driver". as if perry isnt on record stating his desire to provoke a confrontation so he could murder someone. as if perry was just innocently minding his own business, doing nothing wrong and was randomly attacked. he drove directly into a crowd with the intent of provoking a confrontation so he could murder someone. again, it just shows how biased and partisan you are. you dont like that someone whose politics you agree with was held accountable for murdering someone whose politics you disagree with.
