Sgt Daniel Perry charged in death of Garrett Foster

[LittleLebowski]

My understanding is ride share companies have their own driver apps which they use to dispatch drivers and these apps include nav.

Correct, and there’s tracking.

[BigD]

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.

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.

[Ed L]

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?

[HCM]

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?

The grand jury is, in practice a tool of the prosecutors and in general can present as much or as little as they want to establish probable cause.

That is not true at trial, but there is a reason for the old saying that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.

[Coyotesfan97]

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.

[WobblyPossum]

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.

[paherne]

Boy, this thread was better than MayDay for bringing out the commies!

[HeavyDuty]

Boy, this thread was better than MayDay for bringing out the commies!

*This* thread?

[HCM]

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.

Not to mention the defense will likely seek a change of venue.

[LittleLebowski]

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.


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.

Spot fucking on.