I no longer have a need to go anywhere at any time that involves a hassle (except medical appointments) so I can avoid the riots disguised as protests. But I will never regard mobs threatening normal people and blocking their access to public locations as peaceful protests. I now live close enough to Atlanta to be concerned about inadvertently driving into one of those situations.
We really don't know whether Daniel Perry felt he was threatened while going somewhere he had to go. He probably should have turned around. I think you are correct in writing that an automatic pardon is not justified but there are credible reports that exculpatory evidence was withheld from the trial. The effort at this point should be determining if that is true and whether the murder charge was appropriate.
You are correct about open carry. It can be construed as a threat or a dare. I see no need for it and amateurs can easily lose control of their weapon. Concealed carry makes for a more polite society.
That's already in the court evidence. What might be missing is any exculpatory information. All of it should go into a review of the case and the validity of the charges.
The claim from the prosecution was he entered the crowd intentionally, and the jury agreed. If there's proof of prosecutorial misconduct, let it come out in appeal.
For anyone to pretend that they understood the level of threat that Sgt Perry felt when surrounded by screaming rioters, some armed, is laughable. He had the right to defend himself if he felt threatened and he said he felt threatened. He did not hide from the authorities and turned himself in immediately following the incident. He should never have been prosecuted and the DA that went against the recommendations of all of the professional law enforcement should really be removed from that position. We don't need DA's that can not distinguish criminals from victims. The lack of prosecution and detention of those perpetrating this type of gang violence is one of the reasons that the social fabric of America is disintegrating.
You can't go pick a fight and then claim self-defence, nor can you drive into a crowd and then open fire when someone is legally just carrying a weapon. No weapon was pointed at him, by his own admission when talking to the police.
I watched the video right after it happened. The car was swarmed and the sargent did not go charging into the crowd any more than to try and get away. If that is the case, which is what i saw, then self defence is a viable claim. That is what the law enforcement people saw originally and that is why there were not charges. This DA is politically driven and I don't trust that he allowed all the evidence to be brought forward. Soros DA's are prone to do that as we see in DC, NYC, St Louis and other places. The conviction was wrong and the pardon will be the right thing to do. I question the reported type of weapon that he had. Owning a AK47 automatic rifle is a very difficult and a very expensive thing to do in the USA This idiot was not the kind of guy that could own a real AK47. It could have been a fake semi-auto, I guess but that should have been reported.
The thing you don't see, which witnesses stated they did (and a jury believed) is that he ran a red light and drove into the crowd of protestors. That's not "being swarmed". More importantly: he stated that he shot pre-emptively against someone that was not pointing a weapon at him, who was carrying a weapon in a legal fashion.
The AK is irrelevant: it was a legal open carry situation, and your ad hominems show how the political leanings of those involved are all that matter to how you view the law.
More importantly: if Perry's lawyers truly believe evidence was withheld then they can appeal, get that evidence shown, and get the conviction overturned. Pardoning is not appropriate.
You can see from the video that he was not and had not run a red light. You don't need to have a weapon pointed at you to feel like you are being threatened by lethal force. The swarm around the vehicle and a rifle in the crowd would be enough for you to believe your life was being threatened. Waiting for someone to shoot you before you can shoot them is not self defence, it is insanity.
If his lawyers had the same budget as the DA's office I would maybe agree with your last point but he didn't and they had a big advantage of having a pool of rioters that would lie to the court on what happened. if you were caught in that situation with your family and the rioters started banging on your vehicle and some of those same rioters had firearms, what would you do?
Lethal force is only allowed when actually threatened, not just "feeling threatened" - 'cause one could just feel threatened by the existence of someone from an irrational basis.
He had another option: drive away.
Are you now arguing for increasing public defender budgets to match prosecution budgets? That's something I can agree with :-)
If there can be proof those witnesses lied, then there's something there: until then, you're just flapping your gums and not making any legal points.
How do you drive away with 12 people surrounding your vehicle and refusing to move. There is video on line showing the crowd refusing to get out of the way of vehicles in the area of the shooting and honking the horn just made it worse. You never answered the question of what you would do to protect your family caught in that situation.
Also, to note: a pardon does not overturn the conviction - it only reduces/removed penalty. The guilty verdict would still be on Perry's record: it requires expungement in order to remove the conviction.
Wow, fascinating comments and telling on where we are as a society. The left believes in justice via the old tried and true standard; "a jury of their peers." On the other side of the ledger is the new mind set of those on the right; just do whatever to feed the frenzy and throw the red meat to the crowd. No, Abbott is not god nor should he attempt to play one. If the jury screwed up, then as SGman said, let them appeal the case. It's pretty damned simple gang...either you believe in the rule of law, or you don't.
I no longer have a need to go anywhere at any time that involves a hassle (except medical appointments) so I can avoid the riots disguised as protests. But I will never regard mobs threatening normal people and blocking their access to public locations as peaceful protests. I now live close enough to Atlanta to be concerned about inadvertently driving into one of those situations.
We really don't know whether Daniel Perry felt he was threatened while going somewhere he had to go. He probably should have turned around. I think you are correct in writing that an automatic pardon is not justified but there are credible reports that exculpatory evidence was withheld from the trial. The effort at this point should be determining if that is true and whether the murder charge was appropriate.
You are correct about open carry. It can be construed as a threat or a dare. I see no need for it and amateurs can easily lose control of their weapon. Concealed carry makes for a more polite society.
He may felt threatened, but the law says his fear and actions had to be reasonable. They weren’t.
It’s not legal to start blasting because you’re afraid, especially when you put yourself into a situation that makes you feel threatened.
It seems to me that both parties put themselves into threatening positions. Is one more guilty than the other simply because he survived?
The problem for Perry is he posted about intentionally looking for trouble. That provides intent for his actions, for which the jury found him guilty.
So, what about the gangs of rioters, did they not go out looking for trouble. Seems pretty obvious to me that they did.
It wasn't a riot, so that's irrelevant.
It was a riot, they had stopped traffic on a main thoroughfare and people could not drive because their action. What is that if not a riot.
A riot is defined as "a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd." Stopping traffic alone is not a violent disturbance of the peace.
Stopping traffic and denying passage is threatening - especially when carrying weapons.
That's already in the court evidence. What might be missing is any exculpatory information. All of it should go into a review of the case and the validity of the charges.
The claim from the prosecution was he entered the crowd intentionally, and the jury agreed. If there's proof of prosecutorial misconduct, let it come out in appeal.
For anyone to pretend that they understood the level of threat that Sgt Perry felt when surrounded by screaming rioters, some armed, is laughable. He had the right to defend himself if he felt threatened and he said he felt threatened. He did not hide from the authorities and turned himself in immediately following the incident. He should never have been prosecuted and the DA that went against the recommendations of all of the professional law enforcement should really be removed from that position. We don't need DA's that can not distinguish criminals from victims. The lack of prosecution and detention of those perpetrating this type of gang violence is one of the reasons that the social fabric of America is disintegrating.
You can't go pick a fight and then claim self-defence, nor can you drive into a crowd and then open fire when someone is legally just carrying a weapon. No weapon was pointed at him, by his own admission when talking to the police.
I watched the video right after it happened. The car was swarmed and the sargent did not go charging into the crowd any more than to try and get away. If that is the case, which is what i saw, then self defence is a viable claim. That is what the law enforcement people saw originally and that is why there were not charges. This DA is politically driven and I don't trust that he allowed all the evidence to be brought forward. Soros DA's are prone to do that as we see in DC, NYC, St Louis and other places. The conviction was wrong and the pardon will be the right thing to do. I question the reported type of weapon that he had. Owning a AK47 automatic rifle is a very difficult and a very expensive thing to do in the USA This idiot was not the kind of guy that could own a real AK47. It could have been a fake semi-auto, I guess but that should have been reported.
The thing you don't see, which witnesses stated they did (and a jury believed) is that he ran a red light and drove into the crowd of protestors. That's not "being swarmed". More importantly: he stated that he shot pre-emptively against someone that was not pointing a weapon at him, who was carrying a weapon in a legal fashion.
The AK is irrelevant: it was a legal open carry situation, and your ad hominems show how the political leanings of those involved are all that matter to how you view the law.
More importantly: if Perry's lawyers truly believe evidence was withheld then they can appeal, get that evidence shown, and get the conviction overturned. Pardoning is not appropriate.
You can see from the video that he was not and had not run a red light. You don't need to have a weapon pointed at you to feel like you are being threatened by lethal force. The swarm around the vehicle and a rifle in the crowd would be enough for you to believe your life was being threatened. Waiting for someone to shoot you before you can shoot them is not self defence, it is insanity.
If his lawyers had the same budget as the DA's office I would maybe agree with your last point but he didn't and they had a big advantage of having a pool of rioters that would lie to the court on what happened. if you were caught in that situation with your family and the rioters started banging on your vehicle and some of those same rioters had firearms, what would you do?
Lethal force is only allowed when actually threatened, not just "feeling threatened" - 'cause one could just feel threatened by the existence of someone from an irrational basis.
He had another option: drive away.
Are you now arguing for increasing public defender budgets to match prosecution budgets? That's something I can agree with :-)
If there can be proof those witnesses lied, then there's something there: until then, you're just flapping your gums and not making any legal points.
You should read https://txpenalcode.com/sec-9-31/ and https://txpenalcode.com/sec-9-32/.
How do you drive away with 12 people surrounding your vehicle and refusing to move. There is video on line showing the crowd refusing to get out of the way of vehicles in the area of the shooting and honking the horn just made it worse. You never answered the question of what you would do to protect your family caught in that situation.
Also, to note: a pardon does not overturn the conviction - it only reduces/removed penalty. The guilty verdict would still be on Perry's record: it requires expungement in order to remove the conviction.
Wow, fascinating comments and telling on where we are as a society. The left believes in justice via the old tried and true standard; "a jury of their peers." On the other side of the ledger is the new mind set of those on the right; just do whatever to feed the frenzy and throw the red meat to the crowd. No, Abbott is not god nor should he attempt to play one. If the jury screwed up, then as SGman said, let them appeal the case. It's pretty damned simple gang...either you believe in the rule of law, or you don't.