A Soros sponsored DA in Travis County, Texas prosecuted an Army soldier who was working a second job as an Uber driver for killing a BLM protester carrying an AK-47, who pointed said AK-47 at the soldier/Uber driver. Who takes an AK-47 to a peaceful protest? Looked like a justified shooting all the way. But the liberal Soros backed DA in Travis County decided to prosecute and convinced a liberal Travis County jury to convict the soldier of murder. (The deceased was white by the way and while that shouldn't make a difference, race seems to make a difference in prosecutions these days).
Within 24 hours of the verdict, Greg Abbott announced that he would pardon the sergeant, but he needs a request to do so by the Board or Pardons and Paroles. Hope that request comes soon.

Looking like an Abbott/Di Santis ticket or vice versa is the ticket in 2024.

Ridiculous. A jury unanimously convicted the defendant and rejected his self defense claims. Abbott is pandering to you and you lap it up like hungry kitten.

A jury of his peers apparently saw something in this that the governor does not. Is there somewhere a recitation of the facts?

This should never have been charged. No crime. Abbott is smart enough to know that. You're apparently not.

Are you licensed to practice law in Texas?

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Are you licensed to practice law in Texas?

. . . Google me. I do not feel compelled to hide behind a pseudonym. Tell us who you are and we can assess your credibility . . . or lack thereof.

I will trust a 12-member jury before I will trust a shameless politician like Abbott.

Neither do I, but I googled you and you don't come up. You may think you are famous, but apparently not. If you are in fact licensed to practice law in Texas send me a PM and I'd be happy to debate you on this topic. If you are not, you don't know what you are talking about and further debate would be a waste of time.

MJines,

Tried to send you a PM, but couldn't figure out how to do it. I've practiced law in Texas for over 35 years. I don't even know where you are from. If you want to discuss, send me a PM with your credentials and I'm happy to discuss.

Finally figured out how to send a PM. Mike, feel free to respond, or not.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Ridiculous. A jury unanimously convicted the defendant and rejected his self defense claims. Abbott is pandering to you and you lap it up like hungry kitten.

Bullshit!

Why was the BLM freak carrying, and pointing, an AK47 at a police officer!

He got what he deserved!

The police officer should be commended in preventing a mass shooting!

I have seen a lot of semi auto rifles in the last few years at state capitals by the right, deemed by the Right to be peaceful.

As for the pardon, such is the Governor’s proghtive. Long recognized Governor’s have this stroke in our system. Really since before day 1 of our system. If people do not like this, they can vote against the Gov. That is really where it begins and ends.

As for self defense, I believe the jury is in the best place to determine whether the facts were present to establish that justification.

Saeed, I would submit the jury did not believe the AK was pointed at the man. This is Texas where you are encouraged to carry guns and this types Firearms.

Black and BLM people have the same rights to walk aground armed as the rest of us. Again, see all the AR and AK like rifles the right brought to their protest at state capitals.

I am with Lavaca. The sergeant should not have been charged.

I would just as soon walk through a den of rattlesnakes and try not to be bitten as trust a group of Travis County residents with my fate.

Three cheers to Greg Abbott.

Do you believe the dead person had a right to have a box Fed, button (lever) magazine release, semi automatic in his position?

Yes.

But, in this case…it could have just as easily have been a single-barrel shotgun.

The type of gun made no difference.

The whole idea of going on a public demonstration armed is just plain stupid.

I don't care who is doing it.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
The whole idea of going on a public demonstration armed is just plain stupid.

I don't care who is doing it.

Agreed…it is stupid.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

Why was the BLM freak carrying, and pointing, an AK47 at a police officer!

Because all the Second Amendment advocates believe that open carry of assault rifles is a permissible and an acceptable practice. Far more common practice among the fringe right frankly.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

Why was the BLM freak carrying, and pointing, an AK47 at a police officer!

Because all the Second Amendment advocates believe that open carry of assault rifles is a permissible and an acceptable practice. Far more common practice among the fringe right frankly.

Reminds me of the first time I was in the US.

Saw something that defies comprehension!

Some utter idiot had a deer he has killed strapped on the bonnet of his Jeep!

In the car park of a supermarket!

I'll keep Gregg Abbot! Y'all are welcome to Travis County.

Over the years I read post after post where you loons want to destroy the institutions that are the foundations of our democracy. “The judicial system is bad because of activist judges.” Some of your brethren are advocating doing away with the DOJ and FBI. “The right of a woman to make her own choices about her own body.

Now, we should ignore the verdicts of the jury. To you loons, jury verdicts are only good if you agree with them.

The truth is that Abbot is a manipulative piece of shit. I’ll venture a guess that every far right-wing politician is a psychopath, i.e. DeSantos, Cruz, Trump, Green and on and on. The whole damn group.

What the loons like Lane and Jtex are blind to is these psychopaths play with their fears.

Who needs trial by jury when you can just have Lane, Jim and lavaca (whoever in the hell that is) simply declare the proper result without having never heard a minute of testimony, none of the cross examination, etc.

Things the goofy right have taught us. DOJ needs to be shit canned. FBI should be disbanded. Trial by jury should be binned. Then they want to sing about what big supporters of law enforcement they are.

The same could be said for progressive politicians.
Right now, I'm looking at 60+ turkeys 80 yds away.
3 good Toms, some jakes, the rest hens. The hens are all scratching and eating. The Toms are all displayed, the jakes hovering around.
Politicians and lawyers are just like the Toms, Look at me, Look at me. You could say they are trying to act out of the betterment of the species....... But really, it's all about themselves.
Physcho's? No, it's all about the, Look at me.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Who needs trial by jury when you can just have Lane, Jim and lavaca (whoever in the hell that is) simply declare the proper result without having never heard a minute of testimony, none of the cross examination, etc.

Things the goofy right have taught us. DOJ needs to be shit canned. FBI should be disbanded. Trial by jury should be binned. Then they want to sing about what big supporters of law enforcement they are.

Good little brown shirts. And stupid

I’m always interested in how the news reports vary.

The story we’re hearing up here is that the shooter ran a red light to cross an intersection and deliberately drive into the midst of a BLM march or rally. When he was confronted by a marcher with a AK who felt the driver was acting dangerously, the driver put five rounds of .357 into him.

There’s no mention of the AK being pointed at him, and apparently he fired from inside the car. (I hope he had ear protection!)

I have no idea who’s telling the truth - but if I saw a bunch of pissed off people, the last thing I’d do is drive toward them. Hopefully there’ll be some security cameras covering it, but even then those prejudiced toward an explanation will no doubt deny the undeniable. People are pretty damn pigheaded these days.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
This should never have been charged. No crime. Abbott is smart enough to know that. You're apparently not.

Are you licensed to practice law in Texas?

I am. For as long as you....and, you'd think someone that is an officer of the court like you would know better than to substitute your judgment for that of a grand jury or a trial jury. You have no idea what the true facts are here, you have no idea what evidence the GJ or the trial jury saw and based their decision on yet you are completely comfortable substituting your uninformed judgment for the good people of the State of Texas that serve on those juries. Your opinion is completely politically based. If Gregg Abbott told you and Lane to start eating dog turds, you'd probably start following my dog around.

The Grand Jury saw 150 exhibits and heard from 22 witnesses over the course of three weeks. I'm sure the trial court jury heard the same testimony and saw many of the same exhibits. Witnesses said the shooter turned into and was dangerously close to the crowd of protesters. Many witnesses said the guy with the rifle never pointed it at the shooter. We know for sure, he never fired the weapon.

Bullshit on Gregg Abbott. He's the same as your hero trump. Substituting his own judgment for a jury when he thinks it will benefit him personally and politically. And knuckleheads like you go along with it.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

Why was the BLM freak carrying, and pointing, an AK47 at a police officer!

Because all the Second Amendment advocates believe that open carry of assault rifles is a permissible and an acceptable practice. Far more common practice among the fringe right frankly.

Reminds me of the first time I was in the US.

Saw something that defies comprehension!

Some utter idiot had a deer he has killed strapped on the bonnet of his Jeep!

In the car park of a supermarket!

What was he supposed to do with it? Drag it behind his vehicle?

Chances are close to 100% that he was on his way to a processing plant to get the deer butchered. May have stopped at the grocery store to get some ice to pack into the carcass. I've done this a dozen times. Nothing odd or idiotic about it at all if you have to handle your own game processing. Which, I assume....you don't.

Interesting. The shooter initially told police that the victim didn't even point the rifle at him. No wonder this clown was convicted.


https://www.texasmonthly.com/n...pardon-daniel-perry/


After seventeen hours of deliberation spanning Thursday and much of Friday, a jury of Daniel Perry’s peers unanimously convicted him of murder in the 2020 killing of Garrett Foster at a Black Lives Matter protest. Over the weekend, roughly eighteen hours after a segment on Tucker Carlson’s prime-time Fox show complaining about the verdict, Governor Greg Abbott promised to overturn the ruling by pardoning Perry as soon as possible.

The details of the crime are almost immaterial to Abbott, who’s motivated purely by political considerations. The Texas governor has been rooting around for issues to make his congenitally dull brand more appealing to national conservatives, and this is a good one. Foster was attending a protest against police violence in Austin when he was shot, the sort of protest right-wingers in Texas have long opposed. Perry, an Army sergeant who was working as a rideshare driver that night, was the right kind of person for Abbott to back.

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition,” according to a modern aphorism. “To wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Foster, an Air Force veteran, was legally carrying a rifle in accordance with state law as he protested police violence. He is the man whom the law binds but does not protect. Perry was an Uber driver who drove into the protest, saw Foster approach with his rifle, and shot him five times with a gun he was also legally allowed to carry, claiming the right to self-defense. Perry is the man who the law protects but does not bind.

The case concerning the shooting of Foster was not a he said, he said. In his statement to police following the shooting, which was videotaped and shown to the jury in full, Perry didn’t claim that Foster pointed his gun at him—which itself would not be sufficient cause to claim self-defense, under the instructions provided to the jury, but would have helped his case. No witnesses claimed Foster had been aiming at Perry, either. (Perry later claimed Foster had raised the barrel of his gun, though that too is disputed by witnesses.) Instead Perry, who says he’d been distracted before he turned into the path of the protest, said that he “didn’t want to give [Foster] a chance to aim at me.” So Perry shot him five times with a .357 revolver through the window of his car.

Immediately, Perry became a cause célèbre to conservatives who argued he had put down a dangerous element destroying the city. In their telling, Foster had been aiming his gun at Perry, who had narrowly escaped with his life. José Garza, the Travis County district attorney who brought the case, became a “[George] Soros prosecutor” who was a “cancerous tumor” and an “evil, subversive, dangerous Marxist,” according to one very dyspeptic commentator who was retweeted by Texas GOP chair Matt Rinaldi. Abbott called Garza a “rogue” prosecutor, without clarifying what he had gone rogue from. Republican congressman Chip Roy, who represents a district that includes a slice of Austin, argued that the verdict was a decision “in favor of the lawless over those defending against the lawless.”

The night of the conviction, Tucker Carlson urged Abbott to issue a pardon. He told his audience he had asked Abbott on the show and that Abbott had declined. He scorched the governor for that: “So that is Greg Abbott’s position—there is no right of self-defense in Texas.” Carlson’s segments go for marching orders in today’s GOP, and nobody can afford to get on his bad side.

The problem: the governor of Texas, unlike the president, does not have the power to issue pardons at whim. Instead, he can only act on recommendations from a supposedly neutral Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. So Abbott wrote in a statement that he was requesting the BPP, most of whose members were appointed by him, to look into the Perry case and produce a recommendation as quickly as possible.

This made criminal lawyers in Texas feel a little nuts, and rightly so—this is not how the system is supposed to work. The trial was not videotaped, and Abbott did not attend, of course. He does not know more about the evidence than the jurors, and he has made no effort to explain what they got wrong. Abbott is a former Texas Supreme Court justice, and he is generally held to have legal acumen. He knows what he’s doing.

Major political forces in America that identify themselves as being in favor of “law and order” have a very conditional view of what law and order means: law for thee, not for me. Abbott is feeding a growing appetite, in some quarters, for vigilante violence. A few weeks after the Perry shooting, Kyle Rittenhouse, then seventeen, killed two protesters in Wisconsin, having brought his rifle in order to “protect” property. Rittenhouse was acquitted on self-defense grounds, but during his trial he became a much bigger hero than Perry: shooting protesters became a celebrated act, to some, long before a jury determined Rittenhouse had used force justifiably. The real question—should a teenager have brought a long gun to a place of civil unrest to try to “restore order” on his own, and should the law have empowered him to do so?—became obscured.

There is a similar question in the case of Perry. The killing of Foster took place on Congress Avenue, in view of the Texas capitol. Policies set in that Capitol make shootings such as these more likely. State government has blessed a set of affairs in which many protests and episodes of civil unrest are going to draw a lot of armed men and women on both sides. Some with high-powered rifles, some with hidden handguns, many loaded. In an environment like that, in which passions are high, shootings aren’t unforeseeable. If two men are legally carrying guns and stumble into a confrontation, figuring out which one has the “right” to self-defense can become a pretty arbitrary matter, no matter what the law says.

For some Texans, vigilante justice is a feature, not a bug, of lax gun laws. Rittenhouse, a popular figure in the GOP whom a gathering of Texas right-wingers recently paid to meet, joined Carlson in calling for Perry’s pardon. Abbott has only approved seventeen pardons in the last three years, all for lower-level offenses. (Abbott’s predecessor, Rick Perry, averaged nearly sixteen a year during his fourteen-year tenure.) To Abbott, killing a left-wing protester, apparently, is on par with low-level criminal mischief.

Th system is supposed to work.

I too have issues with the governor declaring the need to pardon off of some news cast report.

That initially (supposedly anyhow) he was not charged makes one wonder, given the usual practice with civilian shootings is lock them up until the investigation is done makes one wonder why charges came up later, but that’s the way it should be done…

If there truly was a miscarriage of Justice, there better had be some proof of it, rather than all it being that he wasn’t arrested and charged immediately.

Sounds like (from other quotes here) this guy was looking for trouble, and found it.

While I’m all for the ability to carry weapons in public responsibly, a protest doesn’t sound very responsible for open carry, it sounds like intent of intimidation. While I suppose it’s possible to do it responsibly, I’ve yet to see it.

How did all the police officers who have previously murdered people at a traffic stop charged??

To me a blm protestor on foot in public pointing an AK at somebody has to be shot.

On the other hand, any breathing, walking, talking and listening member of the community should know the whereabouts of public protest and especially a professional or hired driver should know to stay away.

We've had a couple of marches or public meetings here in dillingham and I certainly know about them in advance and know better than to take a work truck there. Of course the marches here have always been the epitome of friendly and peaceful, but regardless, I don't need to be in the middle of it for work.

Is this the same man who offered a reward for reporting your neighbor for having abortion??

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
To me a blm protestor on foot in public pointing an AK at somebody has to be shot.

On the other hand, any breathing, walking, talking and listening member of the community should know the whereabouts of public protest and especially a professional or hired driver should know to stay away.

We've had a couple of marches or public meetings here in dillingham and I certainly know about them in advance and know better than to take a work truck there. Of course the marches here have always been the epitome of friendly and peaceful, but regardless, I don't need to be in the middle of it for work.

Well, to be fair, anybody actually pointing an AK at somebody else may deserve to be shot.

Apparently, the evidence that the jury saw and heard in this trial didn't support the assertion that this is what actually occurred in this case. The reporting indicates that there were multiple witnesses who stated the victim did not point the rifle at the shooter. Even more important, as I pointed out above, the shooter didn't tell police in his initial encounter with them that the victim was pointing the rifle at him. It was only later that he decided he might have needed a reason for shooting the guy.

A jury gets it wrong sometimes in my experience. But, not very often.

This case does get murky based on what happened post-conviction. The lead detective has just submitted a sworn affidavit that asserts the DA ordered him to remove a substantial amount of exculpatory evidence from the record and from his presentation to the grand jury. I do not know yet if that information was given to the defense before trial and I don't know the legal ramifications of withholding from a grand jury but here is the full affidavit:

Affidavit

This isn't intended as support for either side; I don't want to get in my usual mud wrestling mode. I just think it needs to be added to the discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
This case does get murky based on what happened post-conviction. The lead detective has just submitted a sworn affidavit that asserts the DA ordered him to remove a substantial amount of exculpatory evidence from the record and from his presentation to the grand jury. I do not know yet if that information was given to the defense before trial and I don't know the legal ramifications of withholding from a grand jury but here is the full affidavit:

Affidavit

This isn't intended as support for either side; I don't want to get in my usual mud wrestling mode. I just think it needs to be added to the discussion.

Yes, the judge looked at all this and decided it was BS a couple of years ago.

Prosecutors have huge latitude in deciding what evidence is presented to a grand jury.

Also important to note that if there was exculpatory evidence, the defense either did or should have presented it to the jury during trial. It's clear that the judge ordered the DA to produce all exculpatory evidence (which is required anyway in every criminal case) and that none of it made any difference to the jury.

The point here is that Abbott should butt out and let the criminal justice process run its course. He's chosen not to do that for what he perceives as political gain...a wise decision given the title of the OP and the obvious support from some of the posters here.

Frankly, it's my understanding that Abbott doesn't even have the power to pardon the shooter. He can ask the Board of Pardons but since the shooter hasn't even been sentenced yet, that would be premature.

This is a purely political move designed to boost Abbott's POTUS aspirations.

Give Abbott his due . . . he blew the fringe right dog whistle and they came a running.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
This case does get murky based on what happened post-conviction. The lead detective has just submitted a sworn affidavit that asserts the DA ordered him to remove a substantial amount of exculpatory evidence from the record and from his presentation to the grand jury. I do not know yet if that information was given to the defense before trial and I don't know the legal ramifications of withholding from a grand jury but here is the full affidavit:

Affidavit

This isn't intended as support for either side; I don't want to get in my usual mud wrestling mode. I just think it needs to be added to the discussion.

Yes, the judge looked at all this and decided it was BS a couple of years ago.

Prosecutors have huge latitude in deciding what evidence is presented to a grand jury.

Also important to note that if there was exculpatory evidence, the defense either did or should have presented it to the jury during trial. It's clear that the judge ordered the DA to produce all exculpatory evidence (which is required anyway in every criminal case) and that none of it made any difference to the jury.

The point here is that Abbott should butt out and let the criminal justice process run its course. He's chosen not to do that for what he perceives as political gain...a wise decision given the title of the OP and the obvious support from some of the posters here.

Frankly, it's my understanding that Abbott doesn't even have the power to pardon the shooter. He can ask the Board of Pardons but since the shooter hasn't even been sentenced yet, that would be premature.

This is a purely political move designed to boost Abbott's POTUS aspirations.

No doubt this is a political move for Abbott. And he can’t lose because you are correct that he does not have the unilateral power. The parole board has to agree first and I have no idea if the Governor’s office holds any water with them. But he wins even if they decline; he can still say he tried. He may be a whore but he isn’t a dumb whore.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Give Abbott his due . . . he blew the fringe right dog whistle and they came a running.

Referring to me Mike?

I didn’t know this was old news and it’s interesting that the signature page with the date is cut from the screenshot.

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Give Abbott his due . . . he blew the fringe right dog whistle and they came a running.

Referring to me Mike?

Nope . . . Lane, lavaca and others that have declared that the jury got it wrong even though they did not hear a minute of the testimony at trial.

Ok