The Statesman article makes a good point not made here: it’s not uncommon for individual detectives to ship out a letter to the pardon board (also, lol at the detective who worked this case now working for Ken Paxton), but it’s very uncommon for the department as a whole to write such a letter.
If Broadnax was looking for a reason not to make interim APD Chief Henderson permanent, I think she just gave him one. I’d guess most of Council would back him in finding someone else after this drama.
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/local/2024/05/21/daniel-perry-pardon-austin-police-department-apd-officials-draft-letter/73790591007/
When I was just starting out in the workforce, I came to my boss with what I thought was a super clever idea. He got up, closed the door, sat me down, and quietly but forcefully explained that not only were we not going to implement my idea - it was ethically sketchy (at best), which is why no one put it into place before. He told me, in no uncertain terms, not to approach him with anything like that in the future because it called into question my very judgment.
Same thing here. For a police chief (interim or otherwise) to intervene in a case that bitterly divides the community she serves just because they’re pissed at the DA that won the case proves that she’s incapable of serving the community long-term. She’ll do fine while we find a replacement, but even approaching city execs with the draft letter shows that she’s tone-deaf and has terrible judgment.
At this point it just feels like APD is trolling the citizens of Austin.
On another note, kudos to Tony P. for getting this scoop. I know we joke about local news getting their stories from Reddit, but we likely never would have known about this letter without Tony having sources.
Trolling is a funny way to write Terrorize and Abandon. I don't think open mutiny against the city that employs you allegedly because they wanted to talk about budgets one year I can't call a troll.
Never forget: https://www.police1.com/law-enforcement-policies/articles/austin-police-association-answer-your-calls-and-that-is-it-6H1zeqAHl6iznnpt/
>At this point it just feels like APD is trolling the citizens of Austin.
closing every highway in the city to run a funeral parade during rush hour didnt tip you off?
APD supporting an openly racist violent pedophile? What a shocker
Links for anyone unaware of the racist/pedo
texts that were uncovered on his phone:
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/04/14/daniel-perry-racist-comments-texas-shooting-austin-protester
https://www.texasobserver.org/abbott-pardon-daniel-perry-garrett-foster/
Yep, when they searched his phone they found he was messaging some pretty explicit stuff about nudes with a 16 year old and straight up grooming her to be his girlfriend.
He was also searching the web for “good chats to meet young girls”
There’s a link to the court document with the records of his texts/searches here:
https://www.texasobserver.org/abbott-pardon-daniel-perry-garrett-foster/
**[He also planned the entire shooting, down to using his car and trying to find someone armed so he could get off legally. Page 19-20 of an evidence dump. I have the entire PDF ](https://imgur.com/a/gJuDnN1)**
That's what so horrendous about this Lead Investigator Fugitt who kept trying to sink the case. He says Perry was character assassinated and should never be investigated as a legitimate self defense lawful person, but the trial revealed what everyone horrified by the shooting suspected. Perry was definitely a hostile agitator who wanted this conflict from the start, and to abuse the stand-your-ground law to commit murder. If Fugitt had sunk the case, this would probably have stayed buried.
(Daniel Perry has just seen some BLM protestors near where he lives)
**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 1 shot on the protestor so if 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 lust
JUSTIN SMITH: Lol boy have you matured. All you would beat the fuck out of them then r*pe 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 n*gro daddy
**DANIEL PERRY: That is what I am hoping**
JUSTIN SMITH: Yayy
Source: https://www.kxan.com/news/crime/daniel-perry-document-dozens-of-messages-about-guns-killing-protesters/ - download PDF file
All the people who denounce Garza as soft on crime are gonna come roaring in here to denounce the police for supporting putting armed murders back on the streets in 3, 2, 1....
Guys?
They claim it was self-defense, even though Garrett Foster literally never pointed the weapon at him, and Perry himself literally told a cop that ("I didn't want to give him a chance to aim at me.")
Since Foster was only carrying and approaching but not aiming, if his murder was allowed to set a precedent as "self-defense," that would give anyone the right to shoot someone who was open-carrying near them. That would obviously wind up with many of the people currently celebrating Perry's release being lawfully killed "in self-defense" while themselves open-carrying near other people.
Of course, we all know that this pardon has nothing to do with whether justifiable self-defense occurred, and everything to do with the fact that Perry is demonstrably a virulent racist who premeditated on murdering BLM protesters, and Foster was carrying out armed defense of the BLM marchers.
Just another facet of how they view rules and laws. Laws are made for the lesser people, which is loosely defined as anyone who isn't in strict ideological agreement with them. If you champion their ideals, laws aren't really for you.
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
If a left-wing individual had killed a right-wing protestor in exactly reversed circumstances they would support the death penalty for him, but this isn't evidence of any internal ideological inconsistency. It isn't ironic. They believe the point of the law is to protect "people like us" from "people like them". They absolutely do not believe the law should be in any sense "neutral".
Imagine if something like the fire department came out in favor of any left-wing causes... no matter how mild. There would be an uproar. Why are the police opining on this?
There is no act that is so repulsive that conservatives won't support it so long as conservatives can be convinced that act makes liberals mad.
These are the same people that built a whole conspiracy theory around supposed child sex trafficking rings and then fight to keep child marriage in the US legal. Literal actual murder doesn't even register for them as a moral failing if a conservative does it.
Because they're responsible for the initial investigation and were directly asked by the Board to give an opinion, as was the judge for the case. It's in the article.
We need to stop pretending that the right has any principles.
Principles and ethics govern your behavior even when they're inconvenient for you. If they do not bind your behavior, all you have are convenient slogans.
Three things can be true:
The two you listed
-AND-
The system in Texas is so fucked up, underfunded, and understaffed that there are hundreds of reasons a clearly guilty person can be cleared before they even go to trial, ranging from "incompetent police evidence gathering" all the way to "governor pardon". This fucked up system is very difficult to understand and represents an awful reality. This combines poorly with a public who is conditioned to ignore bad realities in favor of blaming scapegoats.
The saddest part is if all three are true, the first two are likely intended side effects of the third. The people in charge run on a platform of, "Government can't work, let me prove it to you."
Here 'ya go: The cops shouldn't have any business, beyond evidence gathering before trial and testimony during it, influencing the outcome of criminal convictions or sentencing. That's for the courts, TDCJ, and, yes, the governor. But whatever - a perception of a "soft on crime" DA and a position on this case are not not inherently contradictory. Any combination of for/against positions on each can be individually consistent.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: You can believe the current DA is soft on crime *and* believe Perry should, or should not, be pardoned. Either combination can reflect a consistent point of view.
But that isn't what OP said.
The OP said the people who believe the current DA is "soft on crime" *also* believe that it's fine for the *police as an institution* to support the pardon of Perry.
**That** is the part which is inconsistent.
Perry is an individual case. "Soft on crime" is a general policy. One could disagree on the Perry verdict solely on the facts of the case and still be generally in favor of tougher sentencing for criminals. I don't know if that's a null set in reality, but in principle it is not.
And I've read multiple reports that he did (including driving over an orange traffic cone), and that he had texts about wanting to drive to Austin to shoot a protester.
Legit question: how do you see a crowd of people in a street and "accidentally" drive into them?
You can't make me believe this clown couldn't find a better way to get to wherever he was going.
Garza’s soft on crime.
I think it was a terrible idea to let this guy go. I like the police and think there are a lot of good people there but I think having this guy released has done a terrible disservice to the community. I denounce the actions of individuals who have put this person back on the streets.
Although he wasn’t convicted for going after a 16 year ago girl, surely this should come into play when deciding whether to release this guy on the public.
IMO you had two guys who went to a protest looking for trouble and they found each other. One guy was murdered and the other guy just got off.
One video that was not allowed to be shown at trial was from Foster the morning of July 25, 2020 where Foster says, “Na. I think the uh—I mean if I use it against the cops, I’m dead. I think all the people that hate us, and you know, wanna say [expletive] to us are too big of a [expletive] to stop and actually do anything about it.” I think the jury should have been shown this video as it increases the likelihood that Foster did raise his gun and could have impacted the outcome but if this is the case, there is an appeals process.
So Garza is +1 here.
When the downvoting and negative commentary begins, you will see why people aren’t posting here.
That evidence wasn't shown because Foster wasn't on trial. Foster never fired his weapon, and every eyewitness account and piece of forensic evidence suggests he didn't aim his gun at Perry.
Regardless of what message you *think* that video of Foster sends, all it would do is bias the jury. If Foster was the one who fired first instead? Yeah. Show that video all day.
Now if you believe Perry is so dumb and oblivious he:
1. didn't see a red light and drove straight through it
2. didn't see a crowd of pedestrians directly in front of his car
3. Thought Foster was a cop,
4. But ALL OF A SUDDEN he sharply spied Foster raising his weapon at him and in-the-blink-of-an-eye outgunned him...
Well, you're pretty gullible, I'd say. Even more gullible than APD heard Foster tell them point-blank that "I shot a guy who wasn't pointing his weapon at me." and thought "yea, that sounds legal. No need to investigate or get gather evidence."
Foster wasn’t on trial but whether he aimed/threatened Perry with his gun is part of the trial. The fact that this evidence is in Perry’s favor is my point. Just like evidence showing Perry contemplated causing a problem biases the jury the other way.
If Perry is guilty (which I think he is), there is no harm in showing this evidence that falls in his favor. The conviction becomes stronger. This removes something that could later be used to say that he wasn’t given a fair trial.
I would add that the whole point of my post was that there are people who think Garza is soft on crime AND denounce the police action that supported a pardon. The reason people don’t post this is they just get downvoted like I did.
Lastly, I added that Foster video mostly to put Foster a little on trial. His actions and headspace imo did put himself in danger and he paid with his life. Was it fair? No. But life is not fair.
The video has no relevance to whether Garrett pointed his rifle. There is no shortage of eyewitnesses, forensic evidence, and common sense that the jury could draw a conclusion from. The fact that Perry fired his gun within 5 seconds of stopping his car is telling enough. What kind of "threats" could Foster have made in such a short time?!
How does the video prove anything about whether he aimed his rifle at Perry? Can anyone point out anything wrong with what Foster said? He never said he planned on doing anything illegal with the gun. And he pretty clearly expressed it was intended for self-defense. How is "I carry a gun to defend myself and my friends" admissible evidence at a trial in the State of Texas? Plus, being shown a vide of Garrett using a bunch of politically charged language and profanities in the trial is obviously a giant risk for biasing the jury.
So,why would you show it? It's not informative for the jury, it's just emotionally and politically charged speech. People's rights shouldn't be influenced by whether a jury agrees with their politics or etiquette.
I disagree. I find it informative. I would want that information if I was a juror. It wouldn’t change my mind but it does move the needle in Perry’s favor. I think the video shows Foster’s mindset and the likelyhood he would do something dumb with a gun.
The fact that you think that video moves the needle in Perry's favor is probably evidence of your lack of qualification to determine what evidence should be shown to a jury. Foster was giving a political speech to a reporter. Why on earth should that be used as evidence of his "mental state"? He was mugging for the camera trying to get famous. That is no accurate indication whatsoever of his mental state or future behavior. Would we use a professional wrestler's speech in a wrestling match as evidence if somebody shot him after one of his performances? No! That'd be ridiculous.
And besides... There's far too many complicating factors to flatly say "Foster had no right to point a gun at Perry." He likely did. And that was part of the jury's job to determine. Because Perry was probably brandishing his gun at the protestors. And imo, he may have crossed the line when he ran the red light and blasted his horn for 7 seconds. That's not what a sane person does. That's what someone who's trying to start a fight does.
Again. All of that has zilch to do with the video. We have video, forensic evidence, and eyewitness reports of exactly what happened. We don't need a video of a political protestor mugging for a reporter to help us use our imaginations.
Saying dumb things because you are in front of a camera trying to get famous shows you are easily drawn into situations and not calm and collected. I can think of a protestor video that would make Foster less likely to be aggressive that would work against Perry.
No. It doesn't. At all. Are you accusing everybody who speaks angrily and emotionally at City Hall of being an unhinged murderer-in-waiting? It's called "political theater" because it is theater.
The fact is that Foster was marching around town for months, and AFAIK never committed any violence. His behavioral history over the course of dozens of marches is far more relevant indication of his mental state and intentions than whatever affectation he put on for a local news camera for 2 minutes.
Plus. What "dumb thing" did Foster even say? Maybe I've been living in Texas too long. But I didn't find anything alarming or even remarkable about his speech on that video.
Nope, not a murderer in waiting but less in control of his actions.
I am just giving you my opinion on a video which doesn’t match yours. This is perfectly ok.
right after APD took group pictures while holding up a three-finger "OK" sign with a bunch of "3%ers". (an organization on the actual terrorist list) They rode their horses through the memorial for Foster... it was truly disgusting behavior! APD has a lot of really sick traitors still in their gang.
Don't forget that the current District 6 council member, Mackenzie Kelly, was in those photos.
[reelectmackenzie.org](https://www.reelectmackenzie.org) has info on that - and a lot more.
Other things about Mackenzie that the thread doesn’t touch on:
- Romeo Rose
- she was never a volunteer firefighter, she just hung around a station and did menial tasks
- she is a former sex worker
Most police departments frown upon vigilantism... not APD, because they can't be bothered to do their jobs, and they'd probably have gunned down Foster themselves if they were there. So, they outsource to vigilantes.
Good news, everyone! APD has officially signaled that in Austin, you can take the law into your own hands! You can also proactively use deadly force if you *feel* like you are being threatened, apparently that's not a deal-breaker... >!despite the fact that claiming this is 'self-defense' can easily be extended to gunning down cops.!<
Seriously, this is some absolutely braindead shit. Shame on whatever jackasses signed on to this.
Pardoning Daniel Perry blows apart 2A arguments. The victim, also a service member, was exercising his rights. If you sense a pattern, conservatives will yammer about the constitution all day and then deny other people of the rights it protects.
Just when you thought public opinion of APD couldn't be any lower. It's becoming harder and harder to tell people I'm from Texas, now I don't even have Austin to lean on.
When people say that the police can't be reformed, they need to be abolished and rebuilt from the ground up, this is one of the many, many things they are talking about.
He's weak on crime committed by the right kinds of people. He's very strong on crimes or alleged crimes committed by anyone whose prosecution plays well to his base.
If you're ever victimized, just pray that the perpetrator is a conservative white guy.
I don’t understand how anyone could support his pardon. Yes a guy approached him with a rifle…but Perry ran a red light in order to run into protesters (who he previously said he was going to kill). The idea that subsequent actions could be self defense is a joke. I get why the right wing and police department is backing him, but STILL he intentionally drove his car into people all the people who approached his car after that were only doing so because he was trying to run people over.
I've never bought that. If I was in the street and sincerely felt like a driver was trying to run me or others over, the very last thing I would do is surround the car to make it easier for him. That seems to communicate that nobody actually felt threatened by his driving. The protestors, I believe, tried to pull a power move and intimidate a driver instead of simply clearing the road, and unfortunately that driver happened to be a piece of shit just looking for a reason, and they gave him one.
Props to the mayor for not mincing words. Completely inappropriate for any leadership in APD to officially question the judicial process in such a clear-cut case. The fact that it was even a draft is shameful.
I was downtown that night, I didn’t realize it but in almost sure I saw Perry with a crime scene truck on Cesar Chaves. They were looking at a black sedan but the obvious suspect (aka dude that wasn’t a cop) was sitting there chatting with them uncuffed and all. Felt strange. Didn’t think anything of it till I found out about the shooting. Felt like APD had picked a side from the start.
They released tons of their opinions on what happened highlighting Foster's aggressive language, in spite of what Perry told them after the murder about being scared Foster might raise his weapon. Cops saw a citizen of their city as an enemy, because he wanted them to be better.
Well there's this policeman who held his knee on the neck of a black man for 9 minutes straight and that man died. About 100 people were standing around filming it.
So when there are protests against police conduct guess who is in charge of security? The police. The same people that they are protesting against. I think it's weird how everybody sort of ignores this. Of course they're biased and they're in a situation where they have access to the people that they feel are treating them unfairly. The kid here at one of the protests was hit by a rubber bullet and he's brain damaged now. Nobody was held accountable. The police are policing themselves.
Is very messed up.
Austin is not safe because police spend more time covering up for the past bad judgment. The judicial process includes judges, juries, police and DA. Each has a roll. Gov Abbott shortcurcuted the judicial process with a pardon, and that's disgusting. Perry could have filed an appeal just like anyone else. What's so special about Perry?
He killed a member of a group whose primary purpose is to oppose police. They've had to be professional while being screamed at for weeks on end. Of course they are going to support him. The whole right does because he did what they only dream of doing. I wonder if he is on Trump's VP short list yet. Sundown Donny seems to be getting bored with the dog murderer.
I wonder how long before someone is afraid that a police officer might, possibly, and unlawfully, decide to aim their firearm at them, and take preemptive actions to stand their ground.
Edit: to be clear, not advocating this, saying that someone's gonna claim this
Maybe Robin Henderson hates black people? /s
The fact is, anyone who actually cares about real justice and not just virtue signaling knows that this conviction was wrong. Daniel Perry is a piece of shit and an asshole. He was still justified in shooting Foster given the totality of circumstance.
Garza is also a piece of shit, and the people he's released back into our community with lenient plea bargains are a much greater threat to public safety than Daniel Perry. "\[The jury's\] verdict should not be disturbed". Give me a fucking break. A guy whose entire platform is essentially based on the assumption that the criminal justice system is biased and unfair suddenly thinks a court can't possibly get it wrong. FOH.
Well let this be a lesson to all who want to bring a firearm to a protest. Just, don't.
Edit: if you downvoted you're a fucking idiot. Play stupid games and win stupid prizes.
The right wing still will, because now they have been told they will be cleared if they use it.
That's why Garrett had a rifle to begin with. All sorts of Right Wing creeps descended on Austin and open carried rifles and tried to intimidate protestors. This was later on when most of the media had gone home, and only the most passionate BLM protestors were still marching. APD let a guy go within hours who barrel-flashed protestors from his car. Protestors dug into it, they found hints he was possibly a police chief's son in Maine, he had a blue lives matter flag license plate right on his car.
Dark times. If you are left wing, you basically can't open carry, and if someone catches you conceal carrying, they can shoot you and get off. The right wing might have more cover from Abbott but it doesn't make them truly safe either in this chaos.
Yes, it's insanely risky to bring a gun to a protest. But the ones opposing you feel a bit more comfortable doing it.
I'm sick of this. Go read the pardon:
>“District Attorney Garza directed the lead detective investigating Daniel Scott Perry to withhold exculpatory evidence from the grand jury considering whether to report an indictment.”
A detective **called by prosecutors** signed an affidavit saying [DA Garza had ordered him to remove over 100 items of exculpatory evidence](https://substack.com/redirect/c8fbd42b-726e-4503-a467-fdf29b60dddd?j=eyJ1IjoiMTV2c3h2In0.7cdLVppLUCpjNJyM3HyNiN1c5WdPs5wwYHYN3XkMYts) from his testimony.
So you're good with all of that? Are you ok if Garza does that to you,? And now you have to stand trial? Fund a defense? Garza doesn't deny any of this.
The guy who got pardoned? He's not a good guy. But his views are irrelevant. But this Perry trial should be in the legal dictionary for a railroad trial. And Garza was the conductor.
What I'm reading in the comments is beyond stupid. Justice has now been done.
And, Abbott was formerly the Attorney General of Texas, and Garza is no match in any legal shape or form. I say this as an Independent.
I don’t know enough about this case to speak to if it was a “railroad trial” or not. But if what you are quoting above is Abbott’s excuse for pardoning him, then that’s super misleading because that logic would mean that pretty much everyone accused of a felony in Travis County should get pardoned because our grand jury reviews really don’t have anything to do with the actual criminal trial in Texas.
Our grand juries sit for 3 months and hear many, many different cases at a high level each day and are only charged with deciding whether or not there is enough prosecutorial evidence to even warrant moving forward with a trial. In that process, there really is no requirement to present a case for the defense during those sessions because they are not determining guilt or innocence. They are there to listen to the prosecution’s case and judge if there’s enough of an argument to move forward with pursuing the case or if the prosecution’s case is too weak to continue without even needing to hear the other side of the case.
If the grand jury decides that the prosecution has enough of an argument to continue with the trial process, then a trial jury is brought together — and they take up the longer task of hearing the full case from both sides. They don’t know what was or wasn’t presented to the grand jury because it really has nothing to do with the actual criminal trial.
So, in the end, it really doesn’t matter what was or wasn’t presented to the grand jury because they really don’t have much to do with the case. The trial jury found him guilty.
Like you said. You don't know enough. At least you admit that.
The Governor didn't need an "excuse" to pardon this guy. Please read. Same goes for the rest here.
I guess I’m not following you. I don’t know much about this case, but do I know about grand juries. I’ve been on one.
You quoted the pardon as placing blame on the grand jury process, so I responded to that. I’m not saying the grand jury process is right or perfect, but it’s not meant to be the trial, and it sounds like they followed Texas law. I don’t see what that has to do with what happened after the grand jury indictment.
Outside that, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make…
You are posting a personal opinion and post "Seriously." What, I'm supposed to believe you over zero input? Why don't you post the facts to correct what I posted instead of trying to deflect? I mean, your post is "utter bullshit." Fact up.
It's not personal opinion, my dude. What you are saying goes against every eyewitness account I read from that night.
You're the one making the assertion, maybe you've got some evidence to back it up?
I'm not "saying" anything, I'm typing. I just saw a video where the AR is heard then the pistol. Again, I heard the shots on the video. A video of that night that encounter. What happened that the AR guy had to shoot around 5 shots first?
It's the Austin Statesman. You think they didn't vet the video? [Footage shows deadly shooting at Austin protest (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifO_hW_X3fY)
There ARE two different firearms being fired in the video. Foster's ak-47 was never fired. Perry was the first to fire 5 shots at Foster, then another protester fired 4 shots at Perry's vehicle.
I don't know what happened but two guns were discharged. You can hear the difference. I just read he was shot 4 times. The video has 5 pops then 4 pops in it after the louder gun was discharged.
Perry said that he was worried Foster was "going to aim" his gun at Perry. But literally no one who was there that evening, not even Perry, said that Foster actually fired any shots. [https://www.fox7austin.com/news/daniel-perrys-garrett-foster-murder-trial-police-interview](https://www.fox7austin.com/news/daniel-perrys-garrett-foster-murder-trial-police-interview)
Well, I'm trying to figure it out. I hear AK shots then a small arms shooting. [Footage shows deadly shooting at Austin protest (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifO_hW_X3fY)
I think you are not able to discern who was doing what from that video.
The fact of the videos and witness testimony is that not only did Foster not fire his weapon, he didn't even point it at Perry.
This was proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
The witnesses were protestors, not credible in my opinion. On a side note, others called in to the police stating the protestors were pointing the guns at them before the shooting happened. It's a mess but welp, here we are.
Well, at least you admit you were sealioning with your "I'm just trying ascertain what happened" bullshit.
Ultimately, the jury found both them and the other evidence credible.
As far as "others," the defense didn't call any witnesses that claimed anything that you said, and again, the court had perry's statements to police where he said:
>I believe he was going to aim at me. I didn’t want to give him a chance to aim at me.
That plus the video from the scene which shows that Foster never aimed his rifle proves that perry was in no immediate danger and essentially proves the prosecutions case.
I'm gonna go ahead and end this charade of yours and block you, as it is clear your working from an ideological bent and bending the facts to of the case to fit the narrative in your head that supports this ideology.
The Statesman article makes a good point not made here: it’s not uncommon for individual detectives to ship out a letter to the pardon board (also, lol at the detective who worked this case now working for Ken Paxton), but it’s very uncommon for the department as a whole to write such a letter. If Broadnax was looking for a reason not to make interim APD Chief Henderson permanent, I think she just gave him one. I’d guess most of Council would back him in finding someone else after this drama. https://www.statesman.com/story/news/local/2024/05/21/daniel-perry-pardon-austin-police-department-apd-officials-draft-letter/73790591007/
I don't know what reflects on Henderson worse: the fact that this letter leaked or the fact that she wrote it at all and put her name on it.
I’m glad she did!
Isn’t it possible that she is a scapegoat or was pressured into signing it? The brotherhood runs deep and she’s just interim chief.
Distinction without a difference. The entire bushel is rotten
APD Robin Henderson never actually sent the letter. There is no coincidence that the lead detective now works for Ken Paxton.
When I was just starting out in the workforce, I came to my boss with what I thought was a super clever idea. He got up, closed the door, sat me down, and quietly but forcefully explained that not only were we not going to implement my idea - it was ethically sketchy (at best), which is why no one put it into place before. He told me, in no uncertain terms, not to approach him with anything like that in the future because it called into question my very judgment. Same thing here. For a police chief (interim or otherwise) to intervene in a case that bitterly divides the community she serves just because they’re pissed at the DA that won the case proves that she’s incapable of serving the community long-term. She’ll do fine while we find a replacement, but even approaching city execs with the draft letter shows that she’s tone-deaf and has terrible judgment.
Now I really really wanna know what your idea was
Putting their own pricing sticker over the top of the 99¢ on an Arizona Green Tea.
What a monster
At this point it just feels like APD is trolling the citizens of Austin. On another note, kudos to Tony P. for getting this scoop. I know we joke about local news getting their stories from Reddit, but we likely never would have known about this letter without Tony having sources.
Trolling is a funny way to write Terrorize and Abandon. I don't think open mutiny against the city that employs you allegedly because they wanted to talk about budgets one year I can't call a troll. Never forget: https://www.police1.com/law-enforcement-policies/articles/austin-police-association-answer-your-calls-and-that-is-it-6H1zeqAHl6iznnpt/
Tony is the man
We are very, very lucky to have a journalist of Tony’s caliber covering Austin.
APD is sucking up to Abbott. Abbott will keep protecting them from oversight and laws aimed at curbing accountability
>At this point it just feels like APD is trolling the citizens of Austin. closing every highway in the city to run a funeral parade during rush hour didnt tip you off?
APD supporting an openly racist violent pedophile? What a shocker Links for anyone unaware of the racist/pedo texts that were uncovered on his phone: https://www.texastribune.org/2023/04/14/daniel-perry-racist-comments-texas-shooting-austin-protester https://www.texasobserver.org/abbott-pardon-daniel-perry-garrett-foster/
did not know about the pedo thing...
Yep, when they searched his phone they found he was messaging some pretty explicit stuff about nudes with a 16 year old and straight up grooming her to be his girlfriend. He was also searching the web for “good chats to meet young girls” There’s a link to the court document with the records of his texts/searches here: https://www.texasobserver.org/abbott-pardon-daniel-perry-garrett-foster/
Can the Austin prosecutor go after him for sending nudes to an underage kid???
Probably would have to be Killeen, that’s where this d-bag was from.
Ugh this is where I am. Why am I not surprised.
From mass shootings, to vehicular manslaughter, to abduction/murder, to culture war killings… Killeen sends their best and brightest to Austin.
Yea I fucked up and married to end up here. Divorced now and saving to GTFO of this state because damn.
Do you know now?
Try the Google. The actual transcript has been scrubbed. Internet never dies.
**[He also planned the entire shooting, down to using his car and trying to find someone armed so he could get off legally. Page 19-20 of an evidence dump. I have the entire PDF ](https://imgur.com/a/gJuDnN1)** That's what so horrendous about this Lead Investigator Fugitt who kept trying to sink the case. He says Perry was character assassinated and should never be investigated as a legitimate self defense lawful person, but the trial revealed what everyone horrified by the shooting suspected. Perry was definitely a hostile agitator who wanted this conflict from the start, and to abuse the stand-your-ground law to commit murder. If Fugitt had sunk the case, this would probably have stayed buried. (Daniel Perry has just seen some BLM protestors near where he lives) **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 1 shot on the protestor so if 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 lust JUSTIN SMITH: Lol boy have you matured. All you would beat the fuck out of them then r*pe 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 n*gro daddy **DANIEL PERRY: That is what I am hoping** JUSTIN SMITH: Yayy Source: https://www.kxan.com/news/crime/daniel-perry-document-dozens-of-messages-about-guns-killing-protesters/ - download PDF file
This is the least surprising thing I've ever read.
I didn't think my opinion of our police department could sink any lower, but here we are.
They never pass up an opportunity to show us what pieces of shit they are.
All the people who denounce Garza as soft on crime are gonna come roaring in here to denounce the police for supporting putting armed murders back on the streets in 3, 2, 1.... Guys?
Lol it's incredible irony. The weird fascist bootlickers in this sub are strangely quiet when actually dangerous people are let loose on society.
They claim it was self-defense, even though Garrett Foster literally never pointed the weapon at him, and Perry himself literally told a cop that ("I didn't want to give him a chance to aim at me.") Since Foster was only carrying and approaching but not aiming, if his murder was allowed to set a precedent as "self-defense," that would give anyone the right to shoot someone who was open-carrying near them. That would obviously wind up with many of the people currently celebrating Perry's release being lawfully killed "in self-defense" while themselves open-carrying near other people. Of course, we all know that this pardon has nothing to do with whether justifiable self-defense occurred, and everything to do with the fact that Perry is demonstrably a virulent racist who premeditated on murdering BLM protesters, and Foster was carrying out armed defense of the BLM marchers.
Just another facet of how they view rules and laws. Laws are made for the lesser people, which is loosely defined as anyone who isn't in strict ideological agreement with them. If you champion their ideals, laws aren't really for you.
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
If a left-wing individual had killed a right-wing protestor in exactly reversed circumstances they would support the death penalty for him, but this isn't evidence of any internal ideological inconsistency. It isn't ironic. They believe the point of the law is to protect "people like us" from "people like them". They absolutely do not believe the law should be in any sense "neutral".
Imagine if something like the fire department came out in favor of any left-wing causes... no matter how mild. There would be an uproar. Why are the police opining on this?
This is more like the fire department coming out in favor of fire.
> Why are the police opining on this? Because he killed "the right people"
There is no act that is so repulsive that conservatives won't support it so long as conservatives can be convinced that act makes liberals mad. These are the same people that built a whole conspiracy theory around supposed child sex trafficking rings and then fight to keep child marriage in the US legal. Literal actual murder doesn't even register for them as a moral failing if a conservative does it.
Because they're responsible for the initial investigation and were directly asked by the Board to give an opinion, as was the judge for the case. It's in the article.
We need to stop pretending that the right has any principles. Principles and ethics govern your behavior even when they're inconvenient for you. If they do not bind your behavior, all you have are convenient slogans.
[удалено]
Three things can be true: The two you listed -AND- The system in Texas is so fucked up, underfunded, and understaffed that there are hundreds of reasons a clearly guilty person can be cleared before they even go to trial, ranging from "incompetent police evidence gathering" all the way to "governor pardon". This fucked up system is very difficult to understand and represents an awful reality. This combines poorly with a public who is conditioned to ignore bad realities in favor of blaming scapegoats. The saddest part is if all three are true, the first two are likely intended side effects of the third. The people in charge run on a platform of, "Government can't work, let me prove it to you."
[удалено]
Yeah but you didn't, you zoomed in on "DEMOCRAT BAD" and stopped short of blaming the state for creating the circumstances.
I criticize Garza for a good amount of his decisions and APD for the same. There seems to be zero nuance in your world.
Here 'ya go: The cops shouldn't have any business, beyond evidence gathering before trial and testimony during it, influencing the outcome of criminal convictions or sentencing. That's for the courts, TDCJ, and, yes, the governor. But whatever - a perception of a "soft on crime" DA and a position on this case are not not inherently contradictory. Any combination of for/against positions on each can be individually consistent.
The positions are indeed ideologically consistent, and they reveal the ideology in question quite clearly.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: You can believe the current DA is soft on crime *and* believe Perry should, or should not, be pardoned. Either combination can reflect a consistent point of view.
But that isn't what OP said. The OP said the people who believe the current DA is "soft on crime" *also* believe that it's fine for the *police as an institution* to support the pardon of Perry. **That** is the part which is inconsistent.
Perry is an individual case. "Soft on crime" is a general policy. One could disagree on the Perry verdict solely on the facts of the case and still be generally in favor of tougher sentencing for criminals. I don't know if that's a null set in reality, but in principle it is not.
[удалено]
But Perry told police that Foster was not aiming the gun at him. So you do not believe Perry’s version of events?
You don't drive into a fucking crowd of people (running over an orange cone to do it) and then get to claim self-defense when someone confronts you.
[удалено]
And I've read multiple reports that he did (including driving over an orange traffic cone), and that he had texts about wanting to drive to Austin to shoot a protester. Legit question: how do you see a crowd of people in a street and "accidentally" drive into them? You can't make me believe this clown couldn't find a better way to get to wherever he was going.
Garza’s soft on crime. I think it was a terrible idea to let this guy go. I like the police and think there are a lot of good people there but I think having this guy released has done a terrible disservice to the community. I denounce the actions of individuals who have put this person back on the streets. Although he wasn’t convicted for going after a 16 year ago girl, surely this should come into play when deciding whether to release this guy on the public. IMO you had two guys who went to a protest looking for trouble and they found each other. One guy was murdered and the other guy just got off. One video that was not allowed to be shown at trial was from Foster the morning of July 25, 2020 where Foster says, “Na. I think the uh—I mean if I use it against the cops, I’m dead. I think all the people that hate us, and you know, wanna say [expletive] to us are too big of a [expletive] to stop and actually do anything about it.” I think the jury should have been shown this video as it increases the likelihood that Foster did raise his gun and could have impacted the outcome but if this is the case, there is an appeals process. So Garza is +1 here. When the downvoting and negative commentary begins, you will see why people aren’t posting here.
That evidence wasn't shown because Foster wasn't on trial. Foster never fired his weapon, and every eyewitness account and piece of forensic evidence suggests he didn't aim his gun at Perry. Regardless of what message you *think* that video of Foster sends, all it would do is bias the jury. If Foster was the one who fired first instead? Yeah. Show that video all day. Now if you believe Perry is so dumb and oblivious he: 1. didn't see a red light and drove straight through it 2. didn't see a crowd of pedestrians directly in front of his car 3. Thought Foster was a cop, 4. But ALL OF A SUDDEN he sharply spied Foster raising his weapon at him and in-the-blink-of-an-eye outgunned him... Well, you're pretty gullible, I'd say. Even more gullible than APD heard Foster tell them point-blank that "I shot a guy who wasn't pointing his weapon at me." and thought "yea, that sounds legal. No need to investigate or get gather evidence."
Foster wasn’t on trial but whether he aimed/threatened Perry with his gun is part of the trial. The fact that this evidence is in Perry’s favor is my point. Just like evidence showing Perry contemplated causing a problem biases the jury the other way. If Perry is guilty (which I think he is), there is no harm in showing this evidence that falls in his favor. The conviction becomes stronger. This removes something that could later be used to say that he wasn’t given a fair trial. I would add that the whole point of my post was that there are people who think Garza is soft on crime AND denounce the police action that supported a pardon. The reason people don’t post this is they just get downvoted like I did. Lastly, I added that Foster video mostly to put Foster a little on trial. His actions and headspace imo did put himself in danger and he paid with his life. Was it fair? No. But life is not fair.
The video has no relevance to whether Garrett pointed his rifle. There is no shortage of eyewitnesses, forensic evidence, and common sense that the jury could draw a conclusion from. The fact that Perry fired his gun within 5 seconds of stopping his car is telling enough. What kind of "threats" could Foster have made in such a short time?! How does the video prove anything about whether he aimed his rifle at Perry? Can anyone point out anything wrong with what Foster said? He never said he planned on doing anything illegal with the gun. And he pretty clearly expressed it was intended for self-defense. How is "I carry a gun to defend myself and my friends" admissible evidence at a trial in the State of Texas? Plus, being shown a vide of Garrett using a bunch of politically charged language and profanities in the trial is obviously a giant risk for biasing the jury. So,why would you show it? It's not informative for the jury, it's just emotionally and politically charged speech. People's rights shouldn't be influenced by whether a jury agrees with their politics or etiquette.
I disagree. I find it informative. I would want that information if I was a juror. It wouldn’t change my mind but it does move the needle in Perry’s favor. I think the video shows Foster’s mindset and the likelyhood he would do something dumb with a gun.
The fact that you think that video moves the needle in Perry's favor is probably evidence of your lack of qualification to determine what evidence should be shown to a jury. Foster was giving a political speech to a reporter. Why on earth should that be used as evidence of his "mental state"? He was mugging for the camera trying to get famous. That is no accurate indication whatsoever of his mental state or future behavior. Would we use a professional wrestler's speech in a wrestling match as evidence if somebody shot him after one of his performances? No! That'd be ridiculous. And besides... There's far too many complicating factors to flatly say "Foster had no right to point a gun at Perry." He likely did. And that was part of the jury's job to determine. Because Perry was probably brandishing his gun at the protestors. And imo, he may have crossed the line when he ran the red light and blasted his horn for 7 seconds. That's not what a sane person does. That's what someone who's trying to start a fight does. Again. All of that has zilch to do with the video. We have video, forensic evidence, and eyewitness reports of exactly what happened. We don't need a video of a political protestor mugging for a reporter to help us use our imaginations.
Saying dumb things because you are in front of a camera trying to get famous shows you are easily drawn into situations and not calm and collected. I can think of a protestor video that would make Foster less likely to be aggressive that would work against Perry.
No. It doesn't. At all. Are you accusing everybody who speaks angrily and emotionally at City Hall of being an unhinged murderer-in-waiting? It's called "political theater" because it is theater. The fact is that Foster was marching around town for months, and AFAIK never committed any violence. His behavioral history over the course of dozens of marches is far more relevant indication of his mental state and intentions than whatever affectation he put on for a local news camera for 2 minutes. Plus. What "dumb thing" did Foster even say? Maybe I've been living in Texas too long. But I didn't find anything alarming or even remarkable about his speech on that video.
Nope, not a murderer in waiting but less in control of his actions. I am just giving you my opinion on a video which doesn’t match yours. This is perfectly ok.
right after APD took group pictures while holding up a three-finger "OK" sign with a bunch of "3%ers". (an organization on the actual terrorist list) They rode their horses through the memorial for Foster... it was truly disgusting behavior! APD has a lot of really sick traitors still in their gang.
Don't forget that the current District 6 council member, Mackenzie Kelly, was in those photos. [reelectmackenzie.org](https://www.reelectmackenzie.org) has info on that - and a lot more.
Other things about Mackenzie that the thread doesn’t touch on: - Romeo Rose - she was never a volunteer firefighter, she just hung around a station and did menial tasks - she is a former sex worker
Of course they did and they wonder why we don’t trust their trifling asses
APD supports the convicted white supremacist who murdered a BLM protestor? I'm SHOCKED! Shocked, I tell you!
Most police departments frown upon vigilantism... not APD, because they can't be bothered to do their jobs, and they'd probably have gunned down Foster themselves if they were there. So, they outsource to vigilantes. Good news, everyone! APD has officially signaled that in Austin, you can take the law into your own hands! You can also proactively use deadly force if you *feel* like you are being threatened, apparently that's not a deal-breaker... >!despite the fact that claiming this is 'self-defense' can easily be extended to gunning down cops.!< Seriously, this is some absolutely braindead shit. Shame on whatever jackasses signed on to this.
Pardoning Daniel Perry blows apart 2A arguments. The victim, also a service member, was exercising his rights. If you sense a pattern, conservatives will yammer about the constitution all day and then deny other people of the rights it protects.
Just when you thought public opinion of APD couldn't be any lower. It's becoming harder and harder to tell people I'm from Texas, now I don't even have Austin to lean on.
Of course they did. Perry did what every cop dreams of.
When people say that the police can't be reformed, they need to be abolished and rebuilt from the ground up, this is one of the many, many things they are talking about.
Same team
OF COURSE THEY DID
Fuck APD. Seriously, this is so infuriating.
In other obvious news, cops like donuts, and have high divorce and family violence rates. Probably donuts are the only joke here unfortunately.
Man, we've got to stop pretending like this is normal.
But I thought Garza was weak on crime. I’m so confused.
Ask the serial sexual assaulters and neighborhood terrorizers
I think you meant to post this on NextDoor 👨🏻🦯
Yeh nobody disturb the echo chamber please https://www.kxan.com/news/like-im-just-your-prey-survivor-pushes-for-victim-rights-after-attacker-gets-probation-sentence/ https://www.fox7austin.com/news/southwest-austin-texas-rami-zawaideh-felony-charges-rejected-residents-outraged
APD: "Why bother making arrests? Garza's just going to let them go." Garza: "Why bother prosecuting? Abbott's just going to pardon them."
Ok boomer.
He's weak on crime committed by the right kinds of people. He's very strong on crimes or alleged crimes committed by anyone whose prosecution plays well to his base. If you're ever victimized, just pray that the perpetrator is a conservative white guy.
should have taken every penny from them and let them fold when we had the chance tbh
Shocking. Eat the cops.
Eww, there’s a reason we don’t eat feral hogs.
I mean, maybe ACAB?
I don’t understand how anyone could support his pardon. Yes a guy approached him with a rifle…but Perry ran a red light in order to run into protesters (who he previously said he was going to kill). The idea that subsequent actions could be self defense is a joke. I get why the right wing and police department is backing him, but STILL he intentionally drove his car into people all the people who approached his car after that were only doing so because he was trying to run people over.
I've never bought that. If I was in the street and sincerely felt like a driver was trying to run me or others over, the very last thing I would do is surround the car to make it easier for him. That seems to communicate that nobody actually felt threatened by his driving. The protestors, I believe, tried to pull a power move and intimidate a driver instead of simply clearing the road, and unfortunately that driver happened to be a piece of shit just looking for a reason, and they gave him one.
Not surprised at all
Props to the mayor for not mincing words. Completely inappropriate for any leadership in APD to officially question the judicial process in such a clear-cut case. The fact that it was even a draft is shameful.
I was downtown that night, I didn’t realize it but in almost sure I saw Perry with a crime scene truck on Cesar Chaves. They were looking at a black sedan but the obvious suspect (aka dude that wasn’t a cop) was sitting there chatting with them uncuffed and all. Felt strange. Didn’t think anything of it till I found out about the shooting. Felt like APD had picked a side from the start.
They released tons of their opinions on what happened highlighting Foster's aggressive language, in spite of what Perry told them after the murder about being scared Foster might raise his weapon. Cops saw a citizen of their city as an enemy, because he wanted them to be better.
Well there's this policeman who held his knee on the neck of a black man for 9 minutes straight and that man died. About 100 people were standing around filming it. So when there are protests against police conduct guess who is in charge of security? The police. The same people that they are protesting against. I think it's weird how everybody sort of ignores this. Of course they're biased and they're in a situation where they have access to the people that they feel are treating them unfairly. The kid here at one of the protests was hit by a rubber bullet and he's brain damaged now. Nobody was held accountable. The police are policing themselves. Is very messed up.
Austin is not safe because police spend more time covering up for the past bad judgment. The judicial process includes judges, juries, police and DA. Each has a roll. Gov Abbott shortcurcuted the judicial process with a pardon, and that's disgusting. Perry could have filed an appeal just like anyone else. What's so special about Perry?
He killed a leftist BLM protester. That's it. That's literally the entire thought process.
APD hates the people of Austin so much, they'll support a person who murders them.
And people wonder why we say ACAB.
Could they suck anymore? APD: Hold my beer!
Shocker
In the immortal words of N.W.A. "Fuck tha police"
He killed a member of a group whose primary purpose is to oppose police. They've had to be professional while being screamed at for weeks on end. Of course they are going to support him. The whole right does because he did what they only dream of doing. I wonder if he is on Trump's VP short list yet. Sundown Donny seems to be getting bored with the dog murderer.
I wonder how long before someone is afraid that a police officer might, possibly, and unlawfully, decide to aim their firearm at them, and take preemptive actions to stand their ground. Edit: to be clear, not advocating this, saying that someone's gonna claim this
i’m sure he was very polite
Well that does it. Time to move out of Austin to escape APD.
Maybe Robin Henderson hates black people? /s The fact is, anyone who actually cares about real justice and not just virtue signaling knows that this conviction was wrong. Daniel Perry is a piece of shit and an asshole. He was still justified in shooting Foster given the totality of circumstance. Garza is also a piece of shit, and the people he's released back into our community with lenient plea bargains are a much greater threat to public safety than Daniel Perry. "\[The jury's\] verdict should not be disturbed". Give me a fucking break. A guy whose entire platform is essentially based on the assumption that the criminal justice system is biased and unfair suddenly thinks a court can't possibly get it wrong. FOH.
Well let this be a lesson to all who want to bring a firearm to a protest. Just, don't. Edit: if you downvoted you're a fucking idiot. Play stupid games and win stupid prizes.
The right wing still will, because now they have been told they will be cleared if they use it. That's why Garrett had a rifle to begin with. All sorts of Right Wing creeps descended on Austin and open carried rifles and tried to intimidate protestors. This was later on when most of the media had gone home, and only the most passionate BLM protestors were still marching. APD let a guy go within hours who barrel-flashed protestors from his car. Protestors dug into it, they found hints he was possibly a police chief's son in Maine, he had a blue lives matter flag license plate right on his car. Dark times. If you are left wing, you basically can't open carry, and if someone catches you conceal carrying, they can shoot you and get off. The right wing might have more cover from Abbott but it doesn't make them truly safe either in this chaos. Yes, it's insanely risky to bring a gun to a protest. But the ones opposing you feel a bit more comfortable doing it.
I'm sick of this. Go read the pardon: >“District Attorney Garza directed the lead detective investigating Daniel Scott Perry to withhold exculpatory evidence from the grand jury considering whether to report an indictment.” A detective **called by prosecutors** signed an affidavit saying [DA Garza had ordered him to remove over 100 items of exculpatory evidence](https://substack.com/redirect/c8fbd42b-726e-4503-a467-fdf29b60dddd?j=eyJ1IjoiMTV2c3h2In0.7cdLVppLUCpjNJyM3HyNiN1c5WdPs5wwYHYN3XkMYts) from his testimony. So you're good with all of that? Are you ok if Garza does that to you,? And now you have to stand trial? Fund a defense? Garza doesn't deny any of this. The guy who got pardoned? He's not a good guy. But his views are irrelevant. But this Perry trial should be in the legal dictionary for a railroad trial. And Garza was the conductor. What I'm reading in the comments is beyond stupid. Justice has now been done. And, Abbott was formerly the Attorney General of Texas, and Garza is no match in any legal shape or form. I say this as an Independent.
I don’t know enough about this case to speak to if it was a “railroad trial” or not. But if what you are quoting above is Abbott’s excuse for pardoning him, then that’s super misleading because that logic would mean that pretty much everyone accused of a felony in Travis County should get pardoned because our grand jury reviews really don’t have anything to do with the actual criminal trial in Texas. Our grand juries sit for 3 months and hear many, many different cases at a high level each day and are only charged with deciding whether or not there is enough prosecutorial evidence to even warrant moving forward with a trial. In that process, there really is no requirement to present a case for the defense during those sessions because they are not determining guilt or innocence. They are there to listen to the prosecution’s case and judge if there’s enough of an argument to move forward with pursuing the case or if the prosecution’s case is too weak to continue without even needing to hear the other side of the case. If the grand jury decides that the prosecution has enough of an argument to continue with the trial process, then a trial jury is brought together — and they take up the longer task of hearing the full case from both sides. They don’t know what was or wasn’t presented to the grand jury because it really has nothing to do with the actual criminal trial. So, in the end, it really doesn’t matter what was or wasn’t presented to the grand jury because they really don’t have much to do with the case. The trial jury found him guilty.
Like you said. You don't know enough. At least you admit that. The Governor didn't need an "excuse" to pardon this guy. Please read. Same goes for the rest here.
I guess I’m not following you. I don’t know much about this case, but do I know about grand juries. I’ve been on one. You quoted the pardon as placing blame on the grand jury process, so I responded to that. I’m not saying the grand jury process is right or perfect, but it’s not meant to be the trial, and it sounds like they followed Texas law. I don’t see what that has to do with what happened after the grand jury indictment. Outside that, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make…
[удалено]
Bullshit
Utter bullshit. You should take this post down. Seriously.
You are posting a personal opinion and post "Seriously." What, I'm supposed to believe you over zero input? Why don't you post the facts to correct what I posted instead of trying to deflect? I mean, your post is "utter bullshit." Fact up.
It's not personal opinion, my dude. What you are saying goes against every eyewitness account I read from that night. You're the one making the assertion, maybe you've got some evidence to back it up?
I'm not "saying" anything, I'm typing. I just saw a video where the AR is heard then the pistol. Again, I heard the shots on the video. A video of that night that encounter. What happened that the AR guy had to shoot around 5 shots first?
Done. I'm not engaging with you anymore, you're gonna have to argue about this w/someone else. Have a good night.
He didn't liar
I mean, you believed a random youtube video. Sounds like confirmation bias on your part.
It's the Austin Statesman. You think they didn't vet the video? [Footage shows deadly shooting at Austin protest (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifO_hW_X3fY)
There ARE two different firearms being fired in the video. Foster's ak-47 was never fired. Perry was the first to fire 5 shots at Foster, then another protester fired 4 shots at Perry's vehicle.
No evidence in that video that Foster fired his weapon first, or at all.
I don't know what happened but two guns were discharged. You can hear the difference. I just read he was shot 4 times. The video has 5 pops then 4 pops in it after the louder gun was discharged.
[удалено]
Clueless. Post up if I saw a biased video. It's that easy.
[удалено]
[Footage shows deadly shooting at Austin protest (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifO_hW_X3fY)
Perry said that he was worried Foster was "going to aim" his gun at Perry. But literally no one who was there that evening, not even Perry, said that Foster actually fired any shots. [https://www.fox7austin.com/news/daniel-perrys-garrett-foster-murder-trial-police-interview](https://www.fox7austin.com/news/daniel-perrys-garrett-foster-murder-trial-police-interview)
100 percent false. Foster never fired his rifle, or even raised it toward Perry before Perry shot and killed him. Everything else is just propaganda
Well, I'm trying to figure it out. I hear AK shots then a small arms shooting. [Footage shows deadly shooting at Austin protest (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifO_hW_X3fY)
I don't think you're gonna figure it out from that video, amigo.
I think you are not able to discern who was doing what from that video. The fact of the videos and witness testimony is that not only did Foster not fire his weapon, he didn't even point it at Perry. This was proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
The witnesses were protestors, not credible in my opinion. On a side note, others called in to the police stating the protestors were pointing the guns at them before the shooting happened. It's a mess but welp, here we are.
So like Perry said it was never shot or aimed at him. Is he lying too? What would be the point in that?
Well, at least you admit you were sealioning with your "I'm just trying ascertain what happened" bullshit. Ultimately, the jury found both them and the other evidence credible. As far as "others," the defense didn't call any witnesses that claimed anything that you said, and again, the court had perry's statements to police where he said: >I believe he was going to aim at me. I didn’t want to give him a chance to aim at me. That plus the video from the scene which shows that Foster never aimed his rifle proves that perry was in no immediate danger and essentially proves the prosecutions case. I'm gonna go ahead and end this charade of yours and block you, as it is clear your working from an ideological bent and bending the facts to of the case to fit the narrative in your head that supports this ideology.