Will it be justice if Abbot Pardons him?

[RocksInMyHead]

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?

By "drove his car into a crowd," we mean precisely that. I don't think that he was intending to run over any protesters, but he drove his car into an area with an obvious crowd of people. Screenshot from one of the videos posted earlier in the thread:

That's Perry's car, turning right against the light, circled in red.

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?

There was no chance for them to "refuse to clear the street" - ten seconds after making his turn (at time point 0:25 in the video), shots are fired. In fact, if you watch the video, one of the protesters yells "Everybody back up!" to try to clear space around the car because people had rushed in to surround it as an immediate reaction. The shots go off right as he finishes saying that

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

Again, 10 seconds is hardly enough time to establish that he was trapped or that he clearly wanted to leave. However, you ignore the fact that a car is a deadly weapon in this situation - between the killer in Charlottesville and the heightened animosity over the BLM protesters (including plenty of right-wing personalities talking about running over protesters), there was ample reason for the protesters to see Perry's actions as a threat.

 

[iluvatar5150]

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?

Ask the risk of coming off as a jerk, I'm not going to spoonfeed people a frame-by-frame annotation of what happened in videos that I've already posted. In case you or anybody else missed them, here is the most relevant one again:

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

I'm only posting a link to reddit because that was the first hosting site on which I found it - posted to r/AskTheDonald of all places. There is no reddit-related commentary in the video that would warrant dismissing it.


ETA: Regarding the aggravated assault charges; I don't know what was claimed in the suit, what the specifics of that law are in TX, whether it requires some amount of intent, whether or not he actually hit anybody with his car (vs just coming close to them), or whether any of that was provable in court. The stand your ground law, which I've posted and which is relevant to the murder charge, does not cover people who initiate the confrontation, which Perry clearly did by driving into the crowd as he did.

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?

Nothing you wrote is relevant to this case.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Was there a vehicular assault charge that got dropped or he was convicted on?

 

[The Barbarian]

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

Abbott has a history. He has no goal other than to have and maintain power.

What's the theory here?

Abbott wants to retain his MAGA credentials. Nothing would do it better than pardoning a racist who was convicted of killing a black man.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ask the risk of coming off as a jerk, I'm not going to spoonfeed people a frame-by-frame annotation of what happened in videos that I've already posted. In case you or anybody else missed them, here is the most relevant one again:

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

I'm only posting a link to reddit because that was the first hosting site on which I found it - posted to r/AskTheDonald of all places. There is no reddit-related commentary in the video that would warrant dismissing it.



Nothing you wrote is relevant to this case.

Again....reddit isn't a source.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Again....reddit isn't a source.

Reddit isn't the source. Reddit is merely the hosting platform. You're welcome to go dig up another copy of the footage somewhere else. I'd be more than happy to reference that one if it'd make you feel better.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Abbott has a history. He has no goal other than to have and maintain power.


Abbott wants to retain his MAGA credentials. Nothing would do it better than pardoning a racist who was convicted of killing a black man.

"Wants to have and maintain power" - so basically any politician who runs and then seeks to win re-election then? You haven't haven't said anything that's exclusive to Abbott


My point was that an established GOP person who won in two previous landslides (both in the primary and the general) doesn't need any additional "credentials" in Texas.

That'd be like saying that that a democrat would need beef up his progressive bona fides to beat a republican in California. When in fact, in Cali, the democrat wins simply because they're NOT the republican. The inverse is true in Texas.


Also, you may want to check a few of the details of what you posted here...

He shot a white guy who approached his car with an AK.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Is that an argument against your claims?

No, it's a correction of Rob's description of the "legal standard".

I can't find this testimony. Link please.

Apologies, it was his police interview, not his courtroom testimony:

Daniel Perry's police interview after Garrett Foster's death revealed to jury

Perry is accused of shooting and killing Black Lives Matter Protester Garrett Foster on July 25, 2020.

www.fox7austin.com

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.

I don't see how that makes a difference. "Protesting illegally" is not a hanging offense.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Ask the risk of coming off as a jerk, I'm not going to spoonfeed people a frame-by-frame annotation of what happened in videos that I've already posted. In case you or anybody else missed them, here is the most relevant one again:

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

I'm only posting a link to reddit because that was the first hosting site on which I found it - posted to r/AskTheDonald of all places. There is no reddit-related commentary in the video that would warrant dismissing it.


ETA: Regarding the aggravated assault charges; I don't know what was claimed in the suit, what the specifics of that law are in TX, whether it requires some amount of intent, whether or not he actually hit anybody with his car (vs just coming close to them), or whether any of that was provable in court. The stand your ground law, which I've posted and which is relevant to the murder charge, does not cover people who initiate the confrontation, which Perry clearly did by driving into the crowd as he did.


Nothing you wrote is relevant to this case.

I watched the video...I saw him make the turn at about 2-5 mph to get out of there as half the people in the intersection didn't appear to have any intention of moving, and then hit the brakes (as I assume there were people in front of his car and he couldn't go any further) and then I saw about 30 people rushing toward his car while he was stopped, followed by the gunshots. This still isn't conclusive evidence that he started the night off aiming to kill anyone or that he wouldn't have been justified or legitimately in fear for his life (which is the legal standard in a stand your ground state)

At worst case, he let his temper get the best of him and failed to yield to pedestrians (and I'm being generous by calling them "pedestrians"), 30 people decided to run at the vehicle and go "vigilante", and things escalated from there.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No, it's a correction of Rob's description of the "legal standard".

Apologies, it was his police interview, not his courtroom testimony:

Daniel Perry's police interview after Garrett Foster's death revealed to jury

Perry is accused of shooting and killing Black Lives Matter Protester Garrett Foster on July 25, 2020.

www.fox7austin.com

I don't see how that makes a difference. "Protesting illegally" is not a hanging offense.

Neither is "failure to yield to pedestrians"...it's a misdemeanor if nobody is struck, yet, he had about 30 people rushing toward his car after he hit the brakes, and one of them was armed with an AK. Can we be honest about the fact that a group of 30 "fired up" people bum rushing a car (one with an AK) likely aren't doing so to settle the dispute with a spirited round of "yo mama jokes" or a "you got served" style dance-off? And that would could reasonably have some fear for their safety if getting rushed by a crowd that size?

Especially when there had been other recent incidents in other part of the country with people getting dragged out of their vehicles?

 

[iluvatar5150]

At worst case, he let his temper get the best of him and failed to yield to pedestrians

That's enough to make the stand your ground law not apply.

The forensic analysis put his speed when making the turn at over 10mph.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Neither is "failure to yield to pedestrians"...it's a misdemeanor if nobody is struck, yet, he had about 30 people rushing toward his car after he hit the brakes, and one of them was armed with an AK. Can we be honest about the fact that a group of 30 "fired up" people bum rushing a car (one with an AK) likely aren't doing so to settle the dispute with a spirited round of "yo mama jokes" or a "you got served" style dance-off? And that would could reasonably have some fear for their safety if getting rushed by a crowd that size?

It's entirely reasonable that that group of people thought they were being attacked by somebody, because they were clearly visible in the street and because driving into a crowd of protestors is something that's happened on multiple occasions and that - as I've already posted - has been subject to some amount of protection from one political party.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Especially when there had been other recent incidents in other part of the country with people getting dragged out of their vehicles?
View attachment 348223

Note, that guy also drove into the crowd on purpose. Apparently he didn't intend to hit anybody, but he did expect them to get out of his way.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Neither is "failure to yield to pedestrians"

Notably, no one got shot for that. And that's a heck of a lot more likely to result in injury or death than "illegal protest".

he had about 30 people rushing toward his car after he hit the brakes, and one of them was armed with an AK. Can we be honest about the fact that a group of 30 "fired up" people bum rushing a car (one with an AK) likely aren't doing so to settle the dispute with a spirited round of "yo mama jokes" or a "you got served" style dance-off? And that would could reasonably have some fear for their safety if getting rushed by a crowd that size?

Maybe 10 people actually rushed towards him, there's no need to exaggerate. And as far as I can tell, Foster did not "rush" - Perry reportedly almost ran over his wife (a quad amputee), so he was likely only a few feet away already. Regardless, they only rushed at him because he drove into the crowd. From the video, you can see the protesters generally ignoring the other cars on the road. In other words, the danger that he perceived himself to be in was a result of his own actions, which nullifies the Stand Your Ground law.

Especially when there had been other recent incidents in other part of the country with people getting dragged out of their vehicles?
View attachment 348223

I'm going to say that the danger posed by a car to a crowd is significantly higher than the danger posed by a crowd to a car.

The most charitable explanation that I can come up with is that Perry was texting (as he testified) and distracted, and therefore did not see the crowd when he turned. When he became aware of the situation and saw the protesters running towards him and one motioning with a gun to move along, he panicked, drew, and fired. That would possibly drop the charge from a first-degree to a second-degree felony, but it would still remain murder, per Texas law.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That's enough to make the stand your ground law not apply.

I don't know that I'd agree with that.

By that standard, if someone shoplifts, and a pack of vigilantes (one of them armed) tries to stop them minutes seconds later, and the shoplifter pulls out a gun, are you saying that the commission of a misdemeanor prior waives rights to self defense post-hoc once the "act" is over?

It's vague enough that there is some legal grey area.

How much time has to pass between the initial commission of a misdemeanor, and the "standing of one's ground" before it would be a valid defense again?

Per the gun-rights defense attorney website I'm looking at:
As long as the threatened person doesn’t provoke the attacker or commit a crime (other than a traffic offense), they have the legal right to self-defense under Texas law.

If the initial "provocation" was the traffic offense of failure to yield (and like I said, I think that could be disputed, but that aside) that doesn't waive the right, and 30 people go running at the car afterwards...that could be reasonably seen as a threat.

Also, can you be "provoked" on behalf of someone else?

For instance, if there's a guy who's throwing trash out of his car window a block away, and that makes me really angry and "provoked" and so me and group of my friends bum rush his car (and one of us is armed), he has to roll the dice and just has to sit there and let the chips fall where they may because technically "he committed a crime" a few seconds prior?

 

[The Barbarian]

"Wants to have and maintain power" - so basically any politician who runs and then seeks to win re-election then? You haven't haven't said anything that's exclusive to Abbott

Many other politicians would have done the same thing. He's not the only politician to do reprehensible things to hold on to power. His was just more than usually awful.

My point was that an established GOP person who won in two previous landslides (both in the primary and the general) doesn't need any additional "credentials" in Texas.

He's taking no chances. On the other hand, it's possible that he approves of the killing. But I suspect he's not that kind of a monster.

That'd be like saying that that a democrat would need beef up his progressive bona fides to beat a republican in California.

You think that they don't? Seriously?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

He's taking no chances. On the other hand, it's possible that he approves of the killing. But I suspect he's not that kind of a monster.

Saying "approves of the killing" lacks some context and nuance.

"Sympathizing with the guy who pulled the trigger" would be a more apropos way of wording it.

If we do a role reversal exercise. When progressive law makers were seeking to lighten certain penalties, or push for things like no-cash bail when protestors were doing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of property damage (or in the case of the VP, advocated for people donating to a bail fund to bail out BLM protestors when they got busted), was it because they approve of rioting and vandalism?, or was it because they somewhat sympathized with the "We're fed up with this crap that's going on" mindset of the people engaging in it?


There's no doubt that a wider and wider swath of people are getting increasingly frustrated with the "no-direction, non-targeted, scattershot" form of civil disruption that's getting past off as "protesting" these days.

IE: "We're mad so we just need to inconvenience someone, doesn't matter who" has just been increasing hostility.

I've mentioned this before, and people are quick to comeback with a snarky "yOuR pROteStInG WRoNg" response...but it's the reality. Disrupting the lives of random people just to signal one's own "radicalness" for <insert cause here> hasn't been bearing much fruit in terms of affecting any meaningful change, in fact, it often does the opposite by alienating people who otherwise would've been receptive.

You think that they don't? Seriously?

Correct, I think they have the luxury of not having to.

With regards to the solid red/blue states, they can stick the most milk toast person they wanted up there, and they're safe in a general election.

In states like California, the most conservative Democrat will still be a republican, and the inverse is true for states like Texas.

The only time someone like an Abbott would have to worry (or even be remotely challenged) is if a Democrat like Joe Manchin decided to move to Texas and run against him. (but the odds of that happening would be slim and none as the DNC views Democrats like Manchin as being "traitors" and "not a real Democrat")

Inverse is true as well... the only way Newsom would be under threat of losing his spot to a republican, is if New England style republican went to Cali and ran against him (someone like a Charlie Baker)

 

[Ana the Ist]

Abbott wants to retain his MAGA credentials. Nothing would do it better than pardoning a racist who was convicted of killing a black man.

Hilarious. Killed a black man did he?

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's entirely reasonable that that group of people thought they were being attacked by somebody

It's entirely reasonable that they thought were being attacked....because they didn't expect there to be cars, in the middle of the street, where they were marching.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Reddit isn't the source. Reddit is merely the hosting platform.

Reddit is a government psy-op. 2013...maybe 2014 reddit mods goofed and accidentally posted the truth in their year end "most reddit addicted cities" post and listed....Eglin AFB as it's most reddit addicted city with over 100k visitors a day.

Eglin AFB has about 2500 personnel. If you include every possible worker in the area you're still something like 20,000 people short. So what do they do over at Eglin AFB? You know....other than misses and stuff, lots of cyber warfare cyber defense type stuff. Also home to a fun Air Force Research Lab that's listed in fun papers like this...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://ncr.mae.ufl.edu/papers/auto15_2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj8yKPxgJ6GAxUeLEQIHWFKD4kQFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1Fr4KFz52sog2TYw4R9pTb

This paper examines how such methods can be lever-
aged to manipulate a social network. This work specifically aims to
investigate how peer pressure from social leaders affects consen-
sus beliefs (e.g., opinions, emotional states, purchasing decisions,
political affiliation, etc.) within a social network, and how an in-
teraction algorithm can be developed such that the group social
behavior can be driven to a desired end (i.e., a convex hull spanned
by the leaders’ states).


So, generally speaking....if you want to see if you can convince the gibbering morons of the internet to believe things like...

1. Trans women are women.

Or maybe...

2. Black people are being killed by police at catastrophic rates.

Or perhaps....

3. Are people dumb enough to protest or possibly riot over something they don't understand or even have any end goal for?


Reddit would be the place that experiment would be played out.

Now, does that mean your particular link is in some way bogus? No. But I know enough to know I can't tell real from flim-flam on reddit, and buddy, I'm sure you can't either.

Find a better source. I'd have an easier time posting evidence that reddit is subject to mass concensus formation than you will proving this guy who got pardoned did anything wrong.

I mean seriously, look out how insane some of the takes are on here. The governor was just earning points with the MAGA base? Nobody even remembered this case...I certainly didn't. The governor is just rewarding conservatives who kill liberals? Do we even know what the political persuasion of anyone involved? Did you see the poster who thinks a black guy got killed here?

If you are so rabidly upset that this happened because "racism" or "politics" then you're just a really really good example of why this trial probably deserves a pardon. The guy got walked up on by an angry group of protesters, one with an AK47, and the guy with the AK47 got shot. Do you think they were kindly offering him directions? Do you think they were saying "hey buddy, don't worry....it's our fault for illegally blocking the road".

If you didn't read the link I posted earlier....yes, this entire protest was illegal. If they had the manpower and willpower, everyone in attendance could justifiably be arrested. Your repeated insistence that the man in the car was "in the wrong" is at best....factually incorrect... at worst, total nonsense. These people had no right to block the street....and if you can't see why a former marine might perceive an angry crowd with guns surrounding him as a threat....then hopefully you aren't serving on any juries anytime soon.