Will it be justice if Abbot Pardons him?

Ana the Ist · May 18, 2024

RocksInMyHead said:
I believe @rambot was pointing out the disparity between the two cases as racism

I see....well, is that really a good comparison of cases?

I mean, we can compare it to this case...

Houston woman left partially paralyzed after being slammed down. Now, her attacker has accepted a plea deal

Prosecutors told KHOU 11 News the victim still has a long road to recovery, but that she's happy with the outcome.

www.khou.com

Where a 17yo released from custody (without bail if I recall correctly) immediately goes out and commits another assault and robbery, deliberately targeting an Asian woman (because of the cultural tendency of asians to prefer cash) leaving a bank....violently slamming her to the ground paralyzing her, then laughing about it after getting caught and remarking how quickly he'll be released from custody again (he wasn't released from custody....as you can see, he got 15 years).

You may think....what does this case have to do with the other?

The answer of course, is the same as the two cases presented in the OP....absolutely nothing.

RocksInMyHead said:
- a white man is convicted of murder for shooting a protester, but the governor pardons him because he was "defending himself" (despite the fact that the jury rejected that argument). On the other hand, a black man spits on a cop and gets 70 years in prison "to send a message".

Yeah I get it...but I don't see why those two cases are being picked.

Are we supposed to believe that every white murderer has it easy and every black man has it difficult because of these two cherry picked examples?

RocksInMyHead said:
Perry's documented racism just serves to demonstrate his motives for instigating the confrontation that led to the shooting,

I don't know the details of the case so....fill me in if you can.

I was under the impression Perry made racist statements about black people?

RocksInMyHead said:
as well as illustrating that he's hardly someone who should be considered a model member of society

That's not why we put people behind bars for murder though. We don't jail people for murder because they're racist or otherwise not model members of society. We jail them for murder because we can say beyond a reasonable doubt that they murdered someone.

RocksInMyHead · May 18, 2024

Ana the Ist said:
I don't know the details of the case so....fill me in if you can.

Perhaps it would behoove you to learn the details before commenting then?

ThatRobGuy · May 18, 2024

iluvatar5150 said:
No, it's a room full of people making $131,000 a year for a cake job, all appointed by Abbott, who came out immediately saying that he wanted to pardon Perry. Perry also became something of a cause celebre among the right.

They weren't all appointed by Abbott.

iluvatar5150 said:
The stand your ground laws are what got him convicted. Perry was the one who committed vehicular assault by running a red light and driving into the crowd, and as loose as they may be, the TX stand your ground law explicitly excludes people who "provoke[d] the person against whom the force was used.[url]"

I think determining what constitutes "original provocation" is key in this matter.

If I was a guy standing in your street behind your car holding an AK47 and refusing to move out the way thereby not letting you get to work, if you hit the gas, are you the one who provoked the confrontation? Or am I?

Perry was driving for Uber when he encountered a crowd of Black Lives Matter protesters. Foster, an Air Force veteran who was armed with an assault rifle, approached Perry’s vehicle and the two got into an altercation. Perry then shot Foster multiple times. Both men were legally carrying their weapons.

I think people have some blind spots with regards to not being able to recognize that people on "their side" of a particular issue/argument can be douchebags.

If you're blocking traffic, holding an AK47, and approaching vehicles of people who just want to carry on about their day, you're the one provoking. A person yelling "get the hell out of the way and let me get by" isn't the original provocation.

"provocation starts when the other side does something we don't like" isn't a reasonable standard.

iluvatar5150 · May 18, 2024

ThatRobGuy said:
They weren't all appointed by Abbott.

I think determining what constitutes "original provocation" is key in this matter.

If I was a guy standing in your street behind your car holding an AK47 and refusing to move out the way thereby not letting you get to work, if you hit the gas, are you the one who provoked the confrontation? Or am I?

Perry was driving for Uber when he encountered a crowd of Black Lives Matter protesters. Foster, an Air Force veteran who was armed with an assault rifle, approached Perry’s vehicle and the two got into an altercation. Perry then shot Foster multiple times. Both men were legally carrying their weapons.

I think people have some blind spots with regards to not being able to recognize that people on "their side" of a particular issue/argument can be douchebags.

If you're blocking traffic, holding an AK47, and approaching vehicles of people who just want to carry on about their day, you're the one provoking. A person yelling "get the hell out of the way and let me get by" isn't the original provocation.

Except that quote you provided isn't accurate - or at least, it leaves out a lot of relevant details. Have you seen the dashcam video from the intersection? I have. I can't seem to find it in the little bit of searching I did right now, but it's out there and I know it's been posted in at least one thread here. I did find this bit from the trial that used the footage I'm thinking of as part of the recreation (the angle to which I'm referring is at the very beginning, taken from Perry's left).

This is the video that got the most attention, though it's harder to see Perry's car, which approaches from across the street / the crowd's left:

The crowd (more of a march, really) was already in the intersection when Perry approached. When he arrived at the intersection, he was not the first car - there were at least two or three cars in front of him, stopped, at a red light. As Perry approached the stopped cars, he passed them on the right in the turn lane, rolled through the red light, and turned right, into the crowd that had already been there.

Protest aside, shooting aside, that was an illegal turn. He failed to stop at a red light and he failed to yield to a whole bunch of pedestrians who, because of the traffic signals, had the right of way. Even if this was purely an accident (and, given his comments that were uncovered, that seems unlikely), he is the one who initiated violence on others. Texas' stand your ground law should not apply.

Abbot let a killer walk because he killed a liberal.

ETA: Found it. I was referring to the left half of this:

https://packaged-media.redd.it/onmiqa7lzjsa1/pb/m2-res_720p.mp4?m=DASHPlaylist.mpd&v=1&e=1716087600&s=df8f2124c1f7d0692ea88b0b4bcc174c1f6d8f46#t=0

RocksInMyHead · May 18, 2024

ThatRobGuy said:
Not sure why some on the right are rallying around this guy as their poster boy for "good guy with a gun".

Clearly this a "looking for a reason" type of guy.

If the guy who had shot the armed robber at the Houston restaurant back in January had been given prison time for it, he would've been a better case to "virtue signal support for self-defense". However, he wasn't charged with anything...likely because he was minding his own business and wasn't blabbing about how he was going to drive to a place where he knew they may be trouble, and didn't convey any "macho talk" about having an itchy trigger finger.

This guy shouldn't get pardoned, it'd be a slap in the face of justice, and to the millions of gun owners who actually do try to make a case for responsible gun ownership. People like this guy make the rest of us look bad.

ThatRobGuy said:
I would need to review some more of the details, but it sounds like this wasn't exclusively an "Abbot decision".

Texas governor pardons Daniel Perry, convicted of shooting and killing protester in 2020

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott issued his pardon after the unanimous recommendation by the state's Board of Pardons and Paroles.

www.cbsnews.com

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Thursday pardoned Daniel Perry, an Army sergeant sentenced to 25 years in prison for shooting and killing a protester in 2020. The Republican governor issued his pardon after a unanimous recommendation by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles.

The Board also unanimously voted to recommend a full restoration of Perry's firearm rights.

If you go to the board members list here:

https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/bpp/brd_members/brd_members.html

They have quite a bit of tenure and combined experience, so perhaps they're privy to some information that we don't have.

It wasn't just a room full of "stuffy old white guys letting him off the hook willy nilly"

One also has to keep in mind the backdrop, whether or not people like or dislike the stand your ground laws in Texas, the laws are what they are, and that's what they have to use when making their decisions.

I gotta ask, Rob, what changed? How did you get from "it would be a slap in the face of justice" to "well, the board said it was okay, so they're probably right"?

Do you think the pardon board had access to information that the jury didn't? Do you think the judge misunderstood Texas's Stand Your Ground law?

Ana the Ist · May 19, 2024

RocksInMyHead said:
Perhaps it would behoove you to learn the details before commenting then?

Are they relevant to the OP?

Is this a discussion of whether or not the pardon was reasonable or some sad attempt at painting the governor or Texas in general as racist?

Ana the Ist · May 19, 2024

RocksInMyHead said:
I gotta ask, Rob, what changed? How did you get from "it would be a slap in the face of justice" to "well, the board said it was okay, so they're probably right"?

Do you think the pardon board had access to information that the jury didn't? Do you think the judge misunderstood Texas's Stand Your Ground law?

Perhaps there's quite a bit of reasonable doubt to the story.

Unless there's evidence that he drove to the protest with the intent of shooting people, it seems at least reasonable that the victim either intentionally or unintentionally aimed at the man who now pardoned and died because of it.

Ana the Ist · May 19, 2024

iluvatar5150 said:
Except that quote you provided isn't accurate - or at least, it leaves out a lot of relevant details. Have you seen the dashcam video from the intersection? I have. I can't seem to find it in the little bit of searching I did right now, but it's out there and I know it's been posted in at least one thread here. I did find this bit from the trial that used the footage I'm thinking of as part of the recreation (the angle to which I'm referring is at the very beginning, taken from Perry's left).

This is the video that got the most attention, though it's harder to see Perry's car, which approaches from across the street / the crowd's left:

The crowd (more of a march, really) was already in the intersection when Perry approached. When he arrived at the intersection, he was not the first car - there were at least two or three cars in front of him, stopped, at a red light. As Perry approached the stopped cars, he passed them on the right in the turn lane, rolled through the red light, and turned right, into the crowd that had already been there.

Protest aside, shooting aside, that was an illegal turn. He failed to stop at a red light and he failed to yield to a whole bunch of pedestrians who, because of the traffic signals, had the right of way. Even if this was purely an accident (and, given his comments that were uncovered, that seems unlikely), he is the one who initiated violence on others. Texas' stand your ground law should not apply.

Abbot let a killer walk because he killed a liberal.

ETA: Found it. I was referring to the left half of this:

https://packaged-media.redd.it/onmiqa7lzjsa1/pb/m2-res_720p.mp4?m=DASHPlaylist.mpd&v=1&e=1716087600&s=df8f2124c1f7d0692ea88b0b4bcc174c1f6d8f46#t=0

That's a rather roundabout argument for putting a man in jail.

Was this protest permitted with all the requisite applications that might allow them to block traffic?

If not, I don't see what his "illegal right turn" has to do with anything. It's a misdemeanor traffic violation... not a reason to point a gun at someone.

Edit- here we go....

Sidewalk Protests and Demonstrations | AustinTexas.gov

The use of a sidewalk for protesting, demonstrations or picketing activity that uses the public sidewalk do not require a permit from the City. There are rules to follow however.

www.austintexas.gov

It doesn't appear as if Austin Texas is big on blocking traffic....not even on the sidewalk.

Edit edit- is this the dashcam footage you're talking about?

You've got a funny way of making a group of random people walking through the middle of the street sound like they were in the crosswalk and not blocking traffic.

Just judging off the first 20 seconds, if that guy raised a gun....stand your ground law or not, that's self defense.

I'd suggest that all the people here rushing to judgment out of hate, or their personal politics, or previous support for BLM are probably the same sort of people who found this man guilty in the first place....and they probably shouldn't have.

iluvatar5150 · May 19, 2024

Ana the Ist said:
Edit edit- is this the dashcam footage you're talking about?

Did you read my post? You quoted the parts where I explained which video I was talking about, including the edit I made that linked to the video.

RocksInMyHead · May 19, 2024

Ana the Ist said:
Are they relevant to the OP?

Is this a discussion of whether or not the pardon was reasonable or some sad attempt at painting the governor or Texas in general as racist?

It's a discussion of whether or not the pardon was reasonable. You - as usual - seem to be hung up on the use of the word "racism" over a year ago. Do you have an alert set or something?

Ana the Ist said:
Perhaps there's quite a bit of reasonable doubt to the story.

Unless there's evidence that he drove to the protest with the intent of shooting people, it seems at least reasonable that the victim either intentionally or unintentionally aimed at the man who now pardoned and died because of it.

Somehow I doubt anything has changed that would cast any doubt in the year since the verdict was rendered. But I'll let Rob speak for himself.

Ana the Ist · May 19, 2024

RocksInMyHead said:
It's a discussion of whether or not the pardon was reasonable. You - as usual - seem to be hung up on the use of the word "racism" over a year ago. Do you have an alert set or something?

Like, why pardon him? He is 100% guilty and a racist, awful person.

EDIT: I have removed the transcript between Perry and an acquaintance that pretty clearly shows his intent. A very naughty word was missed but thanks ThatRobGuy for pointing it out!!!

There is absolutely 0 reason to pardon him.

But in case the racism isn't quite clear enough, we have this little comparison.

I get that the question is "why pardon him"? But the emphasis appears to be on the racism.

RocksInMyHead said:
Somehow I doubt anything has changed that would cast any doubt in the year since the verdict was rendered. But I'll let Rob speak for himself.

Well....bad verdicts have been rendered before.

That's why they have pardons.

Ana the Ist · May 19, 2024

iluvatar5150 said:
Did you read my post?

I did.

iluvatar5150 said:
You quoted the parts where I explained which video I was talking about, including the edit I made that linked to the video.

Well I wanted to be clear because you said....and I quote....

He failed to stop at a red light and he failed to yield to a whole bunch of pedestrians who, because of the traffic signals, had the right of way.

That's a pretty bizarre statement. I don't know any state, any city, any part of the country where a crowd of idiots walking through the street have "the right of way" .

If we imagine you going down any road in the US where your visibility of the next section of road is poor due to a turn, a hill, etc....and place a crowd of morons in the middle of the road.....

1. You'll probably hit them.
2. They don't have the right of way.

ThatRobGuy · May 19, 2024

RocksInMyHead said:
I gotta ask, Rob, what changed? How did you get from "it would be a slap in the face of justice" to "well, the board said it was okay, so they're probably right"?

Do you think the pardon board had access to information that the jury didn't? Do you think the judge misunderstood Texas's Stand Your Ground law?

More details have come out since then.

I had somewhat bought into the "popular narrative" that this was another George Zimmerman kind of case based on the fact that certain media outlets led people to believe that this guy was just going out looking for trouble.

However, that's not provable beyond a shadow of a doubt (by the legal standard).

My first post you quoted was #8 in the thread, at that point based on the AP article in the OP. The part about the protestor having an AK-47 was known, but no mention was made in that article about him actually approaching the vehicle and getting that close to perry.

There's a big difference between protester being armed along side other protestors, and this

At best, this is a case of two guys trying to puff up their chests. Would marcher/demonstrator/protestor, whatever you want to call them, have been so bold to approach the vehicle had he not had a semi-automatic rifle on him? Rule #1 of carrying a firearm, don't put yourself in any situation with your gun, that you wouldn't be willing to put yourself into without it.

RocksInMyHead · May 19, 2024

ThatRobGuy said:
More details have come out since then.

I had somewhat bought into the "popular narrative" that this was another George Zimmerman kind of case based on the fact that certain media outlets led people to believe that this guy was just going out looking for trouble.

However, that's not provable beyond a shadow of a doubt (by the legal standard).

The legal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond a shadow of a doubt.

ThatRobGuy said:
My first post you quoted was #8 in the thread, at that point based on the AP article in the OP. The part about the protestor having an AK-47 was known, but no mention was made in that article about him actually approaching the vehicle and getting that close to perry.

There's a big difference between protester being armed along side other protestors, and this

Proximity doesn't imply threat - especially when you've just driven your vehicle into a crowd of people. Perry testified that he was worried that he might be under threat, not that he actually was. If we accept that it's reasonable to shoot someone who approaches you while carrying a rifle, that effectively nullifies Texas's open carry law.

Ana the Ist · May 19, 2024

RocksInMyHead said:
The legal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Is that an argument against your claims?

RocksInMyHead said:
Proximity doesn't imply threat - especially when you've just driven your vehicle into a crowd of people. Perry testified that he was worried that he might be under threat, not that he actually was.

I can't find this testimony. Link please.

RocksInMyHead said:
If we accept that it's reasonable to shoot someone who approaches you while carrying a rifle, that effectively nullifies Texas's open carry law.

Expert Witness Testifies Protester Garrett Foster Was 18 Inches from Sgt. Daniel Perry’s Car When Shot

Though prosecutors said the witness excluded the “human aspect” from the situation and questioned the reliability of his analysis, he stood by his findings.

thetexan.news

We'll just start with this protest was undoubtedly illegally blocking the street. Like many illegal BLM protests, a decision was made not to arrest protesters en masse.

This doesn't nullify open carry...of course it's legal to open carry. That doesn't mean it's smart to open carry....especially at an illegal protest while you're walking down the middle of the street.

Ana the Ist · May 20, 2024

iluvatar5150 said:
Did you read my post? You quoted the parts where I explained which video I was talking about, including the edit I made that linked to the video.

If you're referring to the reddit link...

I don't consider reddit a source for anything....ever.

The Barbarian · May 20, 2024

rambot said:
Like, why pardon him? He is 100% guilty and a racist, awful person.

Freeing this guy appeals to Abbott's base. Morality and law have nothing to do with it. He wants to win and this will get him votes.

ThatRobGuy · May 20, 2024

The Barbarian said:
Freeing this guy appeals to Abbott's base. Morality and law have nothing to do with it. He wants to win and this will get him votes.

I think it's a stretch to say that's the sole motivation for this.

What's the theory here? That if Abbott hadn't pardoned him, all of the Republicans in the state of Texas would've voted for the blue team out of spite in an election that's 2 years away from now (at which point this story likely won't even be at the top of the news cycle anymore)?

The only way the "he wants to do this so he can win the election and get votes" theory would be plausible is if it was soon-approaching tight race in a swing state that has a large cohort of conservative-leaning independents and/or a 3rd candidate that threatens to steal votes from the GOP. That's not applicable for Texas.

Abbott being an established republican in Texas is what will win him another term in all likelihood.

iluvatar5150 · May 20, 2024

ThatRobGuy said:
I think it's a stretch to say that's the sole motivation for this.

What's the theory here? That if Abbott hadn't pardoned him, all of the Republicans in the state of Texas would've voted for the blue team out of spite in an election that's 2 years away from now (at which point this story likely won't even be at the top of the news cycle anymore)?

The only way the "he wants to do this so he can win the election and get votes" theory would be plausible is if it was soon-approaching tight race in a swing state that has a large cohort of conservative-leaning independents and/or a 3rd candidate that threatens to steal votes from the GOP. That's not applicable for Texas.

Abbott being an established republican in Texas is what will win him another term in all likelihood.

View attachment 348203

View attachment 348202

Yeah, I don't think is explained by a need to pander to his base. His quick reaction to the verdict and his insistence on this being rushed through the board speaks to this coming from within the deeper, darker parts of his soul.

Vehicular assault against left-wing protestors has seen a growing amount of acceptance among the Right over the last several years. This move to shield folks who drive into protest crowds predates even the Charlottesville attack, which has been described as "self defense" by one of the more prominent members of this board. From what I've seen, many on the Right take no issue with Perry's driving his car into a crowd of people and don't see that as having instigated the confrontation.

ThatRobGuy · May 20, 2024

iluvatar5150 said:
Yeah, I don't think is explained by a need to pander to his base. His quick reaction to the verdict and his insistence on this being rushed through the board speaks to this coming from within the deeper, darker parts of his soul.

Vehicular assault against left-wing protestors has seen a growing amount of acceptance among the Right over the last several years. This move to shield folks who drive into protest crowds predates even the Charlottesville attack, which has been described as "self defense" by one of the more prominent members of this board. From what I've seen, many on the Right take no issue with Perry's driving his car into a crowd of people and don't see that as having instigated the confrontation.

I keep seeing the "drove his car into a crowd"...

But from what I've read, the prosecutor declined to pursue any charges of vehicular assault, and the second charge of aggravated assault, he was acquitted on during the main trial, correct?

Was it the case where he turned down the street and the protestors were there, and then refused to clear the street so he could leave?

If you trap someone so they can't leave when the clearly want to, that's initiating the confrontation, correct?

But I think there's a simple compromise here.

If any use of force to get people out of the way that are trapping you against your will is "assault"

Then the initial act of deliberately trapping them there so they can't leave should be guilty of the charge of "false imprisonment", defined as "Any person who intentionally restricts another's freedom of movement without their consent"

Would that be an agreeable compromise? Or is this merely a case where the expectation is that anyone protesting a left-friendly cause gets to inconvenience thousands of other people and trap them in the middle of the road so they can't leave, and have no consequences and everyone just has to sit there and take it?

Will it be justice if Abbot Pardons him?

Aggressively serene!

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Well-Known Member

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Part of the IT crowd

Attachments

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Crabby Old White Guy

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Similar threads