Return to “TX: one dead at shooting during police protest in downtown Austin tonight”
I'm guessing that NBC didn't play this 60 second interview of what a communist terrorist like Garrett Foster is really like in his own words:
Flightmare wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2024 3:05 pm Pardon issued by Gov. Abbott
https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governo ... mendation-
Judge Clifford Brown is a Democrat who is clearly conducting a show trial.philip964 wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 7:25 pm https://news.yahoo.com/soldier-texas-go ... 51280.html
Judge denies new trial.
This seems to be pure deflection.philip964 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 11:02 am https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/texas-g ... 00151.html
Don’t read if your on blood pressure meds.
Austin BLM clearly acted with top cover, including the Travis County DA and it seems the judge in this case. In order to safeguard the security of our state capital city there should be an intense investigation into this group of organized criminals."Criminal street gang" means three or more persons having a common identifying sign or symbol or an identifiable leadership who continuously or regularly associate in the commission of criminal activities.
They don't want to talk about … how his car was swarmed with a bunch of rioters trying to attack him."
Please issue a Pardon on the grounds of actual innocence for SGT Daniel Perry. Per the attached Motion for Retrial SGT Perry was never given a fair trial.
Key evidence was improperly excluded that clearly demonstrates SGT Perry acted in self-defense. This evidence clearly shows Mr. Foster had a well documented pattern of behavior stopping cars on the public streets using his girlfriend’s wheelchair and during which protestors then surrounded the cars while Foster intimidated motorists with his AK-47.
I love how the legacy media portrayed him as her "protector" when he was literally using her as a roadblock the whole time... when these evil people meet their maker they will have a lot of explaining to do...
As I read the motion, the judge needs to be called to the carpet for this.powerboatr wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 2:58 pm i am dumb
how can the judge dis allow any evidence presented by the defense that would demonstrate the dead turkey did in fact provoke others etc ...??
this whole thing is getting worse and yet crickets on the big three news , other than Abbott is wrong in their point of view
the Court Erred by Not Allowing the Defense to Introduce the Police Report
into Evidence
After his very lengthy investigation, Detective Fugitt in this case prepared a
police report (the “Report”) of more than 900 pages. In the end, he concluded:
BASED ON THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE
AVAILABLE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE ASSESSMENT THAT
DANIEL SCOTT PERRY HAD THE RIGHT TO BE ON THE PUBLIC
ROADWAY, IN THE INCORPORATED CITY LIMITS OF AUSTIN,
TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS, DID NOT PROVOKE AN ARMED
ENCOUNTER WITH GARRETT FOSTER OR ENGAGE IN
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OTHER THAN A TRAFFIC VIOLATION
[RAN A RED LIGHT] AND REASONABLY ACTED IN SELF-
DEFENSE UNDER TEXAS PENAL CODE SEC. 9.23-DEADLY
FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. JUSTIFIED HOMICIDE
One incident occurred on July 4, 2020, and involved a driver by the name of
Joe Sanchez. Mr. Sanchez was attempting to travel down the I-35 frontage road that
was open to vehicle traffic. Sgt. Perry attempted to introduce a picture of an incident
involving Mr. Sanchez as well as a video.4 Sgt. Perry also made an offer of proof of
Mr. Sanchez’s testimony. During that incident, Mr. Foster blocked Mr. Sanchez’s car
from proceeding on the public street by standing in front of it with his girlfriend in
a wheelchair, and then protestors swarmed Mr. Sanchez’s car. Mr. Sanchez was
prepared to testify that Mr. Foster attempted to intimidate him and that he was
terrified by Mr. Foster’s actions as well as the actions of Mr. Foster’s fellow
protestors.
A second incident occurred on June 27, 2020, and involved Logan Bucknam
who was driving as a Door Dash driver. Sgt. Perry attempted to introduce a picture
of the incident as well as a video and wanted to call Mr. Bucknam as a defense
witness.5 In that incident, Mr. Bucknam was driving on a public street outside the
Austin Police Department Headquarters, but, when he passed Mr. Foster who was
attempting to block the street by using his girlfriend’s wheelchair, the protestors
swarmed Mr. Bucknam’s car. Mr. Bucknam was so terrified that he pulled a handgun
he kept in his vehicle. When the protestors stopped their assault on Mr. Bucknam’s
vehicle as a result of him being forced to display his handgun, Mr. Bucknam drove
to the safety of the Austin Police garage with protestors running after his car and
surrounding the outside of the garage.
Another exhibit Sgt. Perry had attempted to introduce at trial was a picture of
Mr. Foster, taken on June 27, 2020, where Mr. Foster blocked a black SUV from
proceeding on a public street by standing in front of it with his girlfriend in a
wheelchair.
n addition to these incidents, Sgt. Perry attempted to introduce a video from
June 27, 2020, in which a black truck attempted to make a right-hand turn from the
I-35 frontage road onto a street near Austin Police Department Headquarters.7 Rather
than allowing the truck to turn onto the public street, Jeremy Lett, who admittedly
kicked Sgt. Perry’s car on July 25, 2020, attacked the grill of the truck with a flag
pole.
the protestors did not swarm Sgt. Perry’s car because they were intimidated by Sgt.
Perry’s car, but rather to intimidate Sgt. Perry just like they attempted to intimidate
motorists on June 27, 2020, and July 4, 2020. Likewise, the excluded evidence would
have helped show that Sgt. Foster did not approach Sgt. Perry’s car to protect his
fellow protestors, but rather, approached Sgt. Perry to attempt to intimidate him just
like he attempted to intimidate Joe Sanchez and others.
When a defendant claims that the deceased was the first aggressor, prior
specific acts of violence relevant to the ultimate confrontation may be
offered to show a deceased's state of mind, intent, or motive. We have
not required that the specific, violent acts be directed against the
defendant to be admissible. In fact, we have found error in excluding
such acts where they were directed towards third parties. For purposes
of proving that the deceased was the first aggressor, the key is that the
proffered evidence explains the deceased's conduct. As long as the
proffered violent acts explain the outward aggressive conduct of the
deceased at the time of the killing, and in a manner other than
demonstrating character conformity only, prior specific acts of violence
may be admitted even though those acts were not directed against the
defendant.
It also must be noted that this case was a “multiple assailants” case.3 In light
of that fact, evidence regarding prior acts of Mr. Foster’s fellow protestors would be
admissible under Tex. R. Evid. 404 and 406 to the extent it helped explain their intent
or motive in approaching and attacking Sgt. Perry’s car on July 25, 2020, and to show
habit.
That's only the first few pages...Excluded Evidence
During the trial of this matter, Sgt. Perry attempted to introduce evidence to
show Mr. Foster’s motive, state of mind, and intent on July 25, 2020, by putting forth
other incidents in which he was the first aggressor and during which he unlawfully
scared other drivers who he believed might interfere with his objective to “take the
streets.” Sgt. Perry also attempted to introduce a video recording of Mr. Foster in
which he admitted that he carried his assault rifle as a means to intimidate “puss[ies]”
who did not share his beliefs.
The defense attempted to introduce three other incidents during which Mr.
Foster attempted to stop cars on the public streets using his girlfriend’s wheelchair
and during which protestors then surrounded the cars.
Wow! Sounds like a hot mess. They need to throw that conviction out.rtschl wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 1:52 pm 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
