And the legal system continues to screw over good guys...
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/07...tin-protester/
Printable View
And the legal system continues to screw over good guys...
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/07...tin-protester/
I’ve seen the video. AK boy got what he deserved and the Sgt should have been given a medal. Another example of leftist DA’s ignoring facts and evidence to fulfill political fantasy.
Don't know about "good guy" but the facts of the situation speak for themselves.
Perry was legally and morally justified in shooting Foster and Foster was not justified in pointing his AK 47 at Perry.
Foster was out looking for trouble, Perry was trying to work a side job and a ride share driver.
Let me school you a bit on how bad "woke' progressive prosecutors get in liberal shitholes like Travis County:
This is the same so-called progressive DA who charged an FBI Agent for a shooting which occurred years prior when he was State Trooper. Not only was the Trooper/now Agent cleared at the time, but the same DA who is now charging him personally prosecuted the suspect he shot for assaulting a peace officer with a deadly weapon and sent the sot suspect to prison. AFAIK there are no new facts or evidence in the case nor has the shot suspect's case been re-opened, freed from prison etc. Nope they just scraped up a bunch of woke ass Austinites who hate cops (until they need one) because it's the fashionable thing.
Man, I just don’t know about the totality of this one. I can see it both ways: for sure, if you don’t want to invite a high velocity response, don’t go pointing an AK at people. Foster brought his doom upon himself.
That said, if you don’t want dipshits pointing their AKs at you, don’t drive into crowds at ‘protest’ hootenannies.
The older I get, the more I think that just staying home and drinking the good stuff by yourself is way underrated as a healthy practice.
;)
He did not drive into the crowd. He was driving on a street and a "spontaneous protest" broke out with the crowd swarming off the sidewalk into the road. The driver was trying to drive turn off of the road to get out of there when his car was surrounded and a guy ran up to the car with an AK and pointed it at him. These people are like a cult and treat anyone who happens to be driving in the road who tries to pull away as the enemy.
Here is a video of something similar happening:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Edv61e2T3lE
I know there are activist DAs. Allow me to point out to you that because the DA wrongfully charged a FBI SA doesn't mean this one is a wrongfully charged.
I was asking for specifics reasons why the OP thought Perry was the good guy, like maybe there's video evidence that Foster pointed an AK at Perry. That Perry was working a side hustle is probably even less relevant than his deleted tweets. That the deceased was looking for trouble (which I don't doubt) also doesn't mean you can just smoke him. You know all this.
I'm not sure if this is the best video....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7DqxeFOi3w
I mentioned that Foster pointed the AK at Perry. And Perry leaving the scene to call 911 was influenced by the fact that there was second protestor who was carrying a concealed handgun and pointed it at Perry. There were initial reports the second protester fired at a Perry’s car but I don’t know if that was substantiated. The Texas Tribune is a very left leaning news outlet and of course failed to mention the existence of the second armed protestor.
Speaking of the so called “protest”. It was not a fixed or even a spontaneous protest - it was a small “protest” that started at another location and then went mobile, supposedly walking to the state Capitol. There was no way for Perry to know they were there snd avoid them. He dropped off his passenger near by and the ride share’s nav system took him into their path.
Open carrying a long gun is not illegal, and may or may not be considered provocative in normal circumstances but I believe open carrying a loaded long gun to a protest definitely qualifies as “looking for trouble” and is a clear expression of his state of mind leading up to the shooting. Since you mention Perry’s prior postings, you might want to look into Foster’s prior postings. Suffice to say they are not examples peace love and understanding.
He got caught up in a protest while he was working and minding his own business, literally got held up at gunpoint, lowered his window and saw the barrel of a gun being lowered at him. What would you have done differently in his shoes in those seconds he had to react?
Spontaneous was my bad choice of words. Basically the guy was driving and found himself in the middle of a protest. He was trying to turn down a street to get away from it, but the protesters were storming into the street and surrounding cars--treating people who are trying to drive in the streets as if they are enemies--with one of them rushing up and pointing an AK at him. This goes far beyond protesting--they are threatening people trying to drive away with threats of violence at gunpoint. Rather than the protestors thinking, 'Hey, we are rushing into the street where people are driving and they might get scared and try to drive away," they seem to regard everyone outside of their group as enemies.
His statements have likely played a significant factor in the charging decision, regardless of the fact that he's in the right. He served up motive on silver platter to a politically motivated prosecutor, and now he needs to convince 12 woke Austinites, in a woke court, that his own words aren't connected to how he ended up where he was and for what he did. I think a key takeaway here......again.....is to stop making machismo challenges/statements on the interwebs.
People do it here on P-F.com even after we've discussed this in multiple instances and I shake my head every time; some of you guys out there can't stay out of your own way in a stampede to prove to the world how stupid you are.
With that said, if anyone has a link to a legitimate defense fund donation, please share.
According to DA's in Travis county now, you have to be directly taking fire from 7.62 before offering yourself any reasonable defense.
Great precedent.
FWIW the current DA primaried the former DA for not being liberal enough. The Republican candidate did not have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. Primary elections are just as important-- sometimes moreso-- than the general.
I haven't seen video that clearly shows Foster actually pointing the AK at Perry. The fact that there were a million cameras around ten feet away and none of them show foster with his AK in a lowered/neutral/nonthreatening position next to Perry's car says a lot to me.
The protest that day wasn't scheduled like some around the same time were. Congress ave was not blocked off and cars were on the road legally when they got flash mobbed. Without drone footage it's hard to call that "driving into a protest" when someone is minding their own business and you decide to round up a hundred of your closest buds and ambush them. Perry's navigation app, whichever he was using, is all but 100% guaranteed to have routed him onto Congress ave because it's the main drag. His deleted social media posts weren't part of the story the first time this came up, but Foster's were. The earlier point about macho bullshit on social media is spot on. I'm betting they both regret that now.
"Woke" or not I doubt he'll be convicted. I haven't read Perry's tweets or whatever but it sounds like once those surfaced it was guaranteed he was going to have to defend his actions in court.
The real takeaway is that the narrative battle between "he drove into the protest!" and "he got ambushed and was trying to get out" is now going to rely entirely on you having 4k60p dash cam footage. So for anyone that doesn't have one yet, y'know, might wanna look into it. Also, probably don't make a bunch of threats on the internet.
Hmm. Maybe I missed that. Are the comments online to be viewed? Were they pre- or post-shooting?
I have no idea if the videos are still available online, but we had an entire discussion about the incident here after it happened. Several people posted screen shots showing AK boy coming up to the driver at low ready and based on the position of the stock, it was more than enough information to result in a defensive shooting solution for the driver.
Let's also hope the Sgt's defense attorney can get the video of AK boy (sorry - not gonna say the oxygen thief's name as he's not worth) bragging about why he brought his AK to the protest a few minutes before he decided to point it at an innocent citizen.
What Ed is pointing out here is an important trend in disinformation; when some unknown source claims that someone drove into the crowd, fact-check that shit.
Left wing "justice" nuts constantly claim that drivers are trying to run people over and kill them when they suddenly come upon their protest and try to slow crawl their way around.
I remember seeing the video from May 6 in Portland when crowd that confronted the pickup driver did the exact thing I described above to a van that got in their way. Conveniently, someone took down all the videos we discussed in that thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrKFEWd6Bqw&t=84s
PPB looking to identify suspects from May 6 incident
Until I see some evidence of a person maliciously driving into a crowd, I take those kinds of claims with a grain of salt at best, and as intentional gaslighting at worst.
This is how extremists drive the narrative, by first creating an imagined grievance, and new imagined standards of reasonable behavior.
Archive everything. Conveniently, files will remain public.
https://y2mate.is/en3/
Thanks again. The video that I linked to is very grainy and dark. I couldn’t make out much, certainly couldn’t make the definitive statements others have made about an AK being pointed at the driver.
That there’s a better video may explain the disconnect between what I watched and what others here say happened.
A question for our legal experts or folks who have enjoyed watching Boston Legal.
According to the news item: The district attorney presented evidence to a Travis County grand jury who decided to indict Army Sgt. Daniel Perry on charges of murder, aggravated assault and deadly conduct after he shot and killed Garrett Foster, an armed protester in downtown Austin last year.
Does the district attorney have to provide the grand jury with all of the facts that he has, including detective reports that might suggest that the shooter acted in self defense, or does the District attorney get to cherry pick what he presents in order to sway the jury in the direction of indicting? In other words, can the district attorney withhold information from the grand jury that investigators has uncovered that favors the defendant?
It’s very selective. Usually it’s one Detective or Officer testifying. We had one Detective assigned to the GJ detail. Hearsay is allowed so the one Officer can testify to anything in the case. The Prosecutor asks questions. Once he’s done the Grand Jurors(in Arizona) can ask questions. The Prosecutor will tell you if he got a true bill. It’s a sealed indictment.
I’ve testified for the Prosecutor several times on another agencies case when the case agent wasn’t there. The prosecutor came out and asked for a volunteer.
What HCM said. You can get a ham sandwich indicted.
What HCM and Coyotesfan97 said. I would be incredibly surprised if the prosecutor presented ANY evidence that would have even hinted that this could have been a self defense shooting. Once this gets to trial and the defense can actually present evidence and cross examine prosecution witnesses, it’ll be a whole different ball game.
Boy, this thread was better than MayDay for bringing out the commies!
Austin is going to have a fun time with DA Garza. He released two of those involved in the mass shooting on 6th Street and the Chief came out and said they were involved and not good people.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.sta...amp/5304408001
And one of his ADA has resigned for being pressured to destroy evidence.
https://www.saveaustinnowpac.com/cor...uR0yjTqw3Tk0ok
I’m pretty comfortable to say this is an activist charge.
Eh... this sounds considerably less damning. More like an internal office spat. Story is very recent, though, and could develop into something.
The bigger issue is his releasing 2 of the 6th street shooting participants without further info. But that is on-brand for Garza.
There is some news in the case.
The homicide investigator is accusing the Austin district Attorney of witness tampering by insisting that he tailor his statement to the grand jury to exclude exculpatory evidence.
Here are some excerpts and paraphrases from the article:
Austin Police Department (APD) Detective David Fugitt, who was in charge of the investigation into the incident, insisted that Travis County District Attorney José Garza quashed exculpatory evidence that he had planned to present to the grand jury. He indicated that witness statements gathered by the relatives of the man who pointed the AK at the driver and was shot, Garrett Foster, and their lawyers “were inconsistent with prior interviews” and video of portions of the incident.
With respect to a charge of threatening imminent bodily injury, Fugitt had also planned to say that the complaining witness “never once suggested that Daniel Perry” had threatened her by purposefully driving his vehicle in her direction.
According to the affidavit, Fugitt described an interaction he had with Assistant District Attorney Guillermo Gonzalez in which the detective had asked Gonzalez what “ramifications” there would be if he did not abide by the DA’s request to exclude the evidence favorable to Perry. Fugitt says the office merely told him again which evidence he was not to discuss in front of the grand jury.
According to the affidavit, Fugitt described an interaction he had with Assistant District Attorney Guillermo Gonzalez in which the detective had asked Gonzalez what “ramifications” there would be if he did not abide by the DA’s request to exclude the evidence favorable to Perry. Fugitt says the office merely told him again which evidence he was not to discuss in front of the grand jury.
“In my mind, after this directive from José Garza, is when the conduct of the District Attorney’s Office [went] from highly unethical behavior to criminal behavior,” Fugitt deposed.
“I firmly believe the District Attorney’s Office, acting under the authority of José P. Garza, tampered with me as a witness.”
The detective added that he “was afforded no choice but to comply” after Garza and his employees gave their instructions to “tailor [Fugitt’s] grand jury presentation as directed.”
Perry, the defendant, has asserted that Foster pointed an AK-47 at him and Perry was forced to act to protect his life by shooting Foster in the chest to avoid injuring someone else. The defendant had been working as an Uber driver and happened upon the protest after finishing a trip, according to his lawyer at the time."
Here is a link to the entire article Written by HAYDEN SPARKS ON AUGUST 4, 2021 which appeared in https://thetexan.news/austin-homicid...ess-tampering/
I'm wondering if he has evidence of being coerced. Thing is, what is presented at the grand jury is usually a discussion between the prosecutor and investigating officer....that's the norm, and exculpatory evidence is not required to be presented. To quote the article, "tailoring your statement to exclude exculpatory evidence" is entirely normal and not illegal...the grand jury process is set up that way on purpose. So, he'd really need to show coercion to claim witness tampering, or direction to testify to a lie. Otherwise you're just in the normal realm of grand jury prep. Maybe @vcdgrips @LockedBreech or @ssb have better insight to offer.
In any case, definitely not a good day for the prosecutor when even the investigating officer is trying to not only sink the prosecution, but the prosecutor as well.
I don't know enough about the specifics of this case to comment, but I've been down this road personally as the investigating agent on a large narcotics smuggling matter.
The U.S. Attorney's Office, against my wishes, decided to indict a suspect I had flipped and whose cooperation had led to additional seizures and arrests.
I did not have what I believed to be sufficient evidence against the individual to merit arresting him and bringing him before the courts.
Nevertheless, the U.S. Attorney's Office overruled my concerns and used me at the grand jury to obtain the true bill / indictment.
At a preliminary hearing following the defendant's arrest, the federal judge, who knew me somewhat from past cases I had previously brought before him, picked up that something appeared to be amiss during my testimony and asked me while I was in the witness box if something was wrong.
I asked if I could speak freely and he told me to go ahead. I told him that while the defendant may indeed be part of the criminal conspiracy, I did not feel that I had uncovered sufficient evidence of his criminal acts to make an arrest and bring him to trial. Nonetheless, I said, the U.S. Attorney overruled my position and used me to obtain the indictment...
...My problem is, I continued, that if I am not convinced I have enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, how can you ask jurors, (who will never know as much as I do, or all the intricacies of the case), to convict beyond a reasonable doubt?
The judge agreed with me and told the U.S. Attorney to quash the matter and the defendant was released.
I assured the judge that if the evidence merited it, I would arrest the defendant immediately.
I think, hope and believe that such instances are the exception, but this was my experience on one particular investigation I led over a period of 20+ years.
It was disappointing, but it worked out in the end and that, to my mind, was justice.
There is more info on this elsewhere with the detective's accusations. : https://www.kxan.com/news/local/aust...-daniel-perry/
"AUSTIN (KXAN) — A homicide investigator with the Austin Police Department has accused the Travis County District Attorney of forcing him to alter his testimony to a grand jury in the case against a man accused of shooting and killing an Austin protester.
In a sworn affidavit, Detective David Fugitt wrote, “I firmly believe the District Attorney’s Office, acting under the authority of José P. Garza, tampered with me as a witness.” However, a district judge reviewing these claims said he didn’t see any behavior in this case rising to the level of criminal conduct by the D.A.
Fugitt’s affidavit was filed as a part of a motion by the defense counsel for Sgt. Daniel Perry — an active duty soldier indicted for murder and deadly conduct for the 2020 shooting death of Garrett Foster. Perry’s defense has asked the judge to dismiss the indictment handed down by a Travis County grand jury earlier this summer.
According to police at the time of the incident, Perry was driving a car in downtown Austin during a Black Lives Matter protest. Police say he turned into a group of protesters when Foster and other protesters surrounded the car. Foster was armed with an assault-style weapon. Police say the driver fired from inside the car, hitting Foster multiple times, but Foster did not fire his weapon.
Perry’s attorney, Clint Broden, has said Perry fired in self-defense from inside the car, claiming Foster raised his gun at him.
The document explains Detective Fugitt was the lead investigator on the case.
In the sworn affidavit, Fugitt claims he had “several conversations” with the District Attorney’s Office regarding evidence that could have been favorable to Perry but “it became clear to me that the District Attorney’s Office did not want to present” this evidence. Fugitt said he was ordered to remove more than 100 slides from his presentation and felt like he “did not have any other options but to comply with their orders.”
For example, he wrote, “The District Attorney’s Office also made me remove an animation from Daniel’s Perry’s driving the night of the incident coordinated with his cell phone records that would have refuted the deadly conduct charge ultimately returned by the grand jury.” Fugitt ultimately said he believed the D.A.’s conduct went from being “highly unethical behavior to criminal behavior.”
In a hearing on Wednesday in the 147th District Court, Judge Clifford Brown responded, “I’m just not prepared to jump with you across the chasm that they committed some kind of criminal conduct.”
Broden issued a statement Thursday following the judge’s decision to not pursue the claims further, saying in part he was disappointed that a hearing wasn’t ordered to “get to the bottom of Jose Garza’s actions.”
“It is important to recognize that Judge Brown simply concluded that an evidentiary hearing was not needed because prosecutors are not absolutely required to present exculpatory evidence to a grand jury,” Broden’s statement says. “What does not change is that the top homicide detective in the Austin Police Department has now stated unequivocally, under oath that, based upon his 28 years of experience, he believes that Mr. Garza has engaged in the felony offense of witness tampering.”
Judge Brown noted his long-standing relationship and respect for Detective Fugitt, but insisted that prosecutors “get to decide” how a case is presented to a grand jury.
Still, the judge ordered the District Attorney’s office produce the transcripts from the grand jury proceedings and turn them over to Perry’s defense counsel. Judge Brown said the transcripts were of the “utmost importance” to the court and hoped they would “alleviate” some of the defense’s concerns.
Under federal laws, grand jury proceedings are generally secret. They are led by a prosecutor with no judge present, and the records are usually sealed.
Representatives from the District Attorney’s office told the judge they would work to produce the records as soon as possible — hopefully, at least in part, by Friday.
“We take it very seriously. We are trying to move as quickly as we can,” said Guillermo Gonzalez, director of the Trial Division of the D.A.’s office.
Broden also raised concerns about some statements obtained by the family of Garrett Foster and their attorneys that Fugitt said were “inconsistent” with prior interviews of witnesses and even the video of the incident in question.
Gonzalez responded by pointing out that many of the witness statements were recorded through body camera footage and were made available to the defense for review on July 6. Broden acknowledged that he might not have seen the statements on the body camera footage to which they were referring.
Judge Brown reiterated his request for the D.A.’s office to turn over the evidence and transcriptions to the defense, ahead of another hearing scheduled for Sept. 15. The judge told the defense he was denying their request “without prejudice” — meaning they could bring forward the motion to dismiss Perry’s murder indictment again, after reviewing the transcript and statements.
The judge also told attorneys he wanted to review the emails between Fugitt and the D.A.’s office on the matter, but he would do so “in camera,” or privately."
Have also been in the position of having had the prosecutor, (different case, different prosecutor), trying to have me testify at trial to events as if I had known at the time of arrest what I would find out about the defendant at a later time.
Told him I couldn't do that as it might mislead the jury or the judge as to when I became aware of certain relevant facts. He wasn't happy, we won anyway, and I told him I wouldn't work with him in the future.
Different scenario than the first one I discussed, but somewhat similar tactic to what @Ed L has brought out through the reports he linked.
The specifics of the evidentiary rules are beyond my knowledge. Here is an excerpt from an article regarding a judge's dismissal of the witness tampering accusation:
Excerpts from https://www.fox7austin.com/news/judg...tt-foster-case
"In the affidavit, Fugitt claimed the DA’s office forced him to remove "exculpatory evidence" from his presentation.
"It became clear to me that the District Attorney’s Office did not want to present evidence to the grand jury that would be exculpatory to Daniel Perry and/or to show that witness statements obtained by the family of Garrett Foster and/or their attorneys were inconsistent with prior interviews such "witnesses" gave the police and/or the video of the incident in question," the affidavit stated in part.
Fugitt went on to say his 158-slide powerpoint presentation was reduced to 56 slides.
"It’s certainly not normal for a DA’s office to order a witness appearing before the grand jury not to discuss certain evidence," said O’Connell. "I was a prosecutor for almost 15 years, and I’ve never ever heard of that happening."
However, Jessica Brand, a former defense attorney herself, had a much different take. "I’ve never seen a case where a police officer goes to the defense and says, ‘I don’t think what happened in the grand jury was fair to your client,’" she said. "It’s pretty unusual, if not totally rare."
Brand said what happens in a grand jury is private and Detective Fugitt had no way of knowing what other evidence may have been presented. Additionally, she noted the difference between a grand jury and a trial jury.
"To suggest that the DA’s office behaved unethically because they didn't present every piece of information (to the grand jury) that this officer thought should be presented is just wrong," said Brand. "The trial is where everything gets aired."
On Wednesday, after hearing the claims, a judge denied a future evidentiary hearing, allowing the trial to move forward.
According to O’Connell, the judge denied it without prejudice, allowing the defense the opportunity to come up with more evidence to back their claims. There is also the possibility of a law enforcement entity carrying out a separate investigation into Fugitt’s claims.
The attorneys representing Army Sergeant Daniel Perry sent this statement to FOX 7 Austin:
"While we are disappointed that Judge Brown did not order an evidentiary hearing to get to the bottom of Jose Garza's actions, it is important to recognize that Judge Brown simply concluded that an evidentiary hearing was not needed because prosecutors are not absolutely required to present exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. This certainly does not excuse Mr. Garza's actions and Judge Brown has also agreed to allow us to present additional evidence if the Texas Rangers conduct a review of Jose Garza’s politically motivated actions in this case.
What does not change is that the top homicide detective in the Austin Police Department has now stated unequivocally, under oath that, based upon his 28 years' experience, he believes that Mr. Garza has engaged in the felony offense of witness tampering.
In the end, we also believe people are missing the distinction between the obligation to present exculpatory evidence and actively interfering with its presentation. As an example, a person has no obligation to help someone bleeding on the side of the road but that does not mean they can actively interfere with a third party attempting to render aid to the person.
While we are fully confident that a jury that hears all the evidence and not just the evidence cherry picked by Jose Garza with the help of Foster family lawyers will ultimately acquit Sgt. Perry, Garza's actions should trouble all Travis County citizens . Garza's actions, however characterized, leave a noxious odor permeating this case that can only be removed with a fully investigation."
Sorry I'm such a ghost lately and can't be much help here, my jurisdiction almost never uses grand juries. Your characterization of them is essentially correct to the best of my understanding, however. The grand jury essentially taking the place of a PC Affidavit so the prosecutor puts their best foot forward. Procedural protections mostly kick in after the grand jury has returned the bill. I'm curious about this question, though, and will poke around a bit more. I don't think putting your best case forward includes affirmative efforts to obscure evidence but it may!
Still love this forum and y'all are good folks. Between lawyerin', teaching grad course in addition to my undergrads now, and getting engaged, I'm just finding that free time...well, it is a rare beast.
Best,
Cameron