U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)-
“A Travis County grand jury … indicted 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,” The Texas Tribune reports. “…Perry stopped his car and honked at people protesting police brutality while they walked through the street, blocks from the state Capitol. Seconds later, he drove his car into the crowd, police said.”
And then he killed one of them? That doesn’t sound good.
But there’s more to the story than is being reported here, although the beginning of how it is unraveling is touched on:
“[Perry’s attorney Clinton] Broden said the prosecutors in the Travis County District Attorney’s office refused to allow Perry’s attorney to present written evidence to the jury. This refusal is unusual in Texas and begs the question of why the District Attorney’s Office would not allow this,’ Broden said. ‘We understand the political motivations of the District Attorney, however, when this case is presented to a jury at trial and the jury gets to hear all the evidence instead of a one-sided presentation, we have every confidence that Sgt. Perry will be acquitted.’”
So what’s going on with the prosecutor? And why shouldn’t our default be to side with “two witnesses of the shooting [who] told the Texas Tribune they believed Perry’s behavior was threatening and intentional?” For that matter, aren’t his tweets about “protesters, anarchists, agitators, looters, or lowlifes” damning and indicative of a predisposition to wanting to do them harm?
In answer to that last one, most of the comment posters here, myself included, had better never find ourselves in a defensive gun use situation against anyone who is a member of a group we oppose because the Internet is forever (unless you’re David Chipman), and any sentiments expressed could come back to haunt us.
Click the link to read the whole article: Prosecutor’s Treatment of Self-Defender