TexasCHLforum.com

Gov. Abbott pardons Daniel Perry:

Getting crazier:

Juror researching law at home and sharing with the rest of the jury. It was also said that an alternate juror did not verbally participate in deliberations but did make reaction noises expressing displeasure with certain comments made by the jury. https://www.fox7austin.com/news/daniel- ... on-retrial

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 5:17 pm
Maybe his posts are in this thread but I can't find them. Could you post a copy of his posts? The internet sure has changed the nature of criminal prosecution. They will even use things posted before you ever utilized self defense when they really want to get you.

Here's link from Austin TV station with Perry's social media timeline:
https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/a-look ... perry-case

Grayling813 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 3:19 pm

That picture was one partial second of an event. As Paladin noted above a lot can happen in the next second. Show me a picture of Perry's handgun being fired at the same instant the AK is at low ready then there's something to discuss.

I don't think any of us here would disagree with that. But once the prosecution presents it's evidence, the defense has to counter with evidence or testimony and it appears they did not, but I do not know for sure. This opens a lot of questions for me about the defense. Were they able to impeach any of the eyewitness testimony? Did they present the exculpatory evidence at trial that was withheld in the Grand Jury?

This is where the saying that it's better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six appears applicable but costly, both financially and his freedom for now. He's in an unfriendly county and city and even though cleared by police, the DA's office found his social media posts and had eyewitness testimony (albeit most likely from fellow rioters). His posts along with the eyewitnesses, made it very difficult for Perry and his defense, especially since no one corroborated his statements to the police, nor was their video or pictures that did so.

I'm curious what the US Army has done yet. I imagine this administration will court martial him even if pardoned.

This case needs to be a lesson to us all, no matter the final outcome. Kurt Schlichter's three points are spot on too:

Paladin wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 1:31 pm

rtschl wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 12:41 pm The picture he circled and red lines the angle of the barrel does appear that the rifle is in the low ready, which is not a threatening manner.

Foster moved in closer before he was shot. Perry's video statement indicates that the rifle was pointed at his vehicle. If a masked psycho, like the one explicitly shown in Foster's last video interview, walking in the road approached my vehicle in the night time as part of a continuing nationwide riot and pointed his loaded AK-47 at my vehicle... I don't have to make a lot of assumptions about his intentions. Perry's car was surrounded by rioters, so driving away was not an option.

I train students how to shoot a rifle starting on safe at the low ready and hit the A-zone of a USPSA target at 7 yards in less than 1 second. Some students are even faster. The distance was way under 7 yards. If you had a outstanding 1 second draw from concealment, or a solid 1 second response from ready... you shoot eachother at the same time...a tie means that you still loose. You are DEAD DEAD DEAD if you wait to draw against the drop. At TAC-CON 2023 I watched something like 10-out-of-10 trained defenders "die" in force-on-force scenarios trying that strategy of defense. Gabe Suarez calls it the "Suicide Drill". Suicide is exactly what it is. It was honestly hard to watch.

I absolutely agree with you and kind of my point about WHO is carrying can help determine possible threat intentions. I do think it probably was a deadly threat situation for Perry. But Branca's point was there was no evidence or testimony presented of Foster pointing his weapon at Perry, as all of the eyewitness testimony contradicted Perry statement to Police. But I think they all were Antifa/BLM rioters like Foster. I don't know how much credibility they should be given. I wish the trial had been televised.

Paladin wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 12:17 pm

If the jury concluded that Foster had not, in fact, pointed his rifle at Perry, then it must also conclude that it was Perry who was the initial deadly force aggressor in this confrontation when he shot Foster—and, as the initial deadly force aggressor Perry cannot justify his use of force as self-defense.

I have never heard of having to wait until a firearm is actually pointed at you to be a firm requirement of self-defense. Try some force-on-force. I doubt there would be many survivors of such a real world defense strategy as to wait until the firearm is actually pointed at you before you can react.

If I understand his argument, it is that seeing a firearm, especially in an open carry state, cannot in and of itself be enough to cause alarm. The picture he circled and red lines the angle of the barrel does appear that the rifle is in the low ready, which is not a threatening manner.

One other point Branca made about trying to analyze the case - it wasn't televised. So he can only go by what is reported and what information is publicly available. So that made his review more difficult.

But a crowd of rioters and protesters illegally encircling the car and impeding him, along with Foster and his rifle, may have been perceived by Perry as a threat. Foster may have pointed the rifle at him. There just isn't any evidence to corroborate it.

For me, I'm not alarmed or concerned when I generally see someone open carrying - handgun or rifle. But if I see Antifa with their black bloc and masked person(s) openly carrying - my alert and safety concerns are highly elevated. As a group, they repeatedly call for and enact violence, assaults, deadly assaults, fire bombing etc.

IMHO, Antifa legally fits the definition of a street gang, and Texas should declare Antifa as members of a gang and then they would be prohibited carriers.

Andrew Branca, who wrote the Law of Self Defense, wrote article below and he thinks the conviction was legally sound. I have to admit, his analysis from a legal perspective challenged my views on this case. Perry really hurt himself with his social media posts prior to the incident and that was used against him.

Some lessons everyone should take away from this case no matter what:
* Don't post stupid, idiotic stuff that can and WILL be used against you. That includes this forum or other friendly places
* Don't go looking for a fight
* Especially don't post that you're looking for a fight, even in jest or in frustration of current events
* Always try to deescalate and avoid a fight if you can

Perry may very well have just been venting online and there is no question that Antifa/BLM rioters were and still are dangers to society. I'm willing to give him and anyone the benefit of doubt on that due to the fact cities were being burned down and authorities were standing down police all across the US. But it looks like his own posts came back to bite him. Since he was the only witness to claim Foster pointed the rifle at him, the jury never heard it, because he never testified. That is his right, but that may have hurt him too.

Branca wrote the following near the end of the article:
First, on an emotional level this was not a particularly easy analysis for me to write. I’ve shot guns since childhood, I’ve carried a gun for personal protection essentially every day of my adult life, I’m an NRA Life-Benefactor member, I’m a decades-long NRA Certified Instructor in pistol, rifle, and personal protection, I’m on the political Right, and I believe George Soros and the prosecutors he funds to be political enemies of my nation.

But a proper legal analysis must be done rationally, independent of emotion and political or other biases. The evidence and the law must guide us in our analysis. Sometimes the destination we arrive at will be unpleasant. That does not make it legally unsound, however, and forcing a legal conclusion to satisfy emotional and political desires is simply not sound legal analysis.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/04/d ... lly-sound/

Gov. Abbott has issued the following statement and an attorney on Twitter, Marina Medvin shows affidavit that a police officer claims DA tampered with him as a witness and believe the Soros DA's have acted criminally.