[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
National News See other National News Articles Title: It may be heretical to think so, but Daniel Perry’s murder conviction in Austin, Texas might be legally sound From what I at first read, saw, and heard, I figured that Army Sgt. Daniel Perry was the victim of a Soros-backed DA who was, like so many others, indicting people for merely defending themselves. Much as Kyle Rittenhouse was put on trial when he fired at someone pointing a rifle at him, Perry claimed that he responded with gunfire when a BLM demonstrator named Garret Foster pointed an AK-47 he was carrying at him in a 2020 Austin, TX protest march. Perry was, at the time, driving an Uber car. But Andrew Branca of Legal Insurrection has surprised me with his close analysis of the evidence presented and his conclusion that the jury’s conviction was legally justifiable: From the start Perry would be arguing that he shot Foster in self- defense, and only after Foster had pointed his rifle at Perry. THE KEY ISSUE IN THE TRIAL: WAS THE RIFLE POINTED AT PERRY? And right there we have the key issue in this murder trial. Certainly, if the jury believed that Perry fired only after Foster pointed his rifle at him, there could hardly be a clearer case of self-defense. Indeed, as someone who personally carries a firearm for self-defense on a regular basis, anyone who unlawfully points a rifle at me ought to have a high expectation of getting shot in self-defense. Immediately following the announcement of the guilty verdict, social media rather exploded with outrage at a guilty verdict so insanely inconsistent with Perry’s narrative of shooting in self-defense only after facing the muzzle of Foster’s rifle. The problem with this outrage, however, is that it presumes as an indisputable fact that Foster initiated the deadly force confrontation by pointing his rifle at Perry. That “fact,” however, is not indisputable. Indeed, that fact was aggressively disputed by the prosecution, which argued to the jury that Foster never pointed his rifle at Perry, and so Perry’s claimed legal grounds for shooting Foster in self-defense simply doesn’t exist. In support of this narrative of guilt the prosecution presented the testimony of multiple witnesses who told the jury that Foster never pointed his rifle at Perry. The confrontation itself was captured on poor quality video, from which screen captures were secured, and neither video nor stills ever show Foster pointing his gun at Perry. (snip) 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. Perry, seated, explains his shooting during a police interrogation Branca points out that when there is a dispute over fact, it is the role of the jury to decide what the facts are. Those of us who did not sit through the trial owe them deference in general. There are further points to Branca’s analysis, which you should read if the case interests you, and especially if you are impatiently awaiting a pardon for Perry by Texas Governor Gregg Abbott. My instincts remain in favor of someone who feels threatened having the right to defend with lethal force. So, for me the question is what emphasis the jury ought to have placed in the nature of the BLM demonstration. Was it inherently threatening? Were there racist chants like “Get whitey”? And: was the Austin jury, where they "Keep Austin weird" as a civic religion, impartial? At a minimum, I can see that Governor Abbott needs to take his time in coming to a decision on the pardon. I also hope and anticipate that Tucker Carlson, who has pushed for a pardon, will have Andrew Branca on as a guest to discuss this. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||