Shooting at Austin protest tonight, 1 dead

[Deej 76,800]

9 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Wonder what ride service he was driving for.  They might be a little upset about the gun.

"I warned you." - Ann Kitchen

[Bevo Num1 1,020]

So, Shaggy Law Dawgs, what’s the quality of defense Mr. Perry has bought himself with the Law Firm of Broden and Mickelson? I mean I’d be a bit concerned when my lawyers can’t even get the date of the incident correct in their press release. 

Or correctly spell "rifle".

[GHOSTUSER 361]

9 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

Mr. Perry is a dumbass for putting that on social media. Everyone today has a permanent record. We live in the era of big data. 

Malice aforethought is no longer the terminology, but Texas Courts have a long history handling the concept in some depth. 

Innocent until proven guilty - but those tweets are problematic for this shooter. 

It amazes me that people still use their real names on Twitter. The shooter shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt anymore. Looks to me like he was actively seeking a confrontation.

[drt 638]

13 minutes ago, Deej said:

"I warned you." - Ann Kitchen

Is Ride Austin still around?  That would be something if he was driving for them.

[Cajun 11,706]

That would be the only good thing to come out of this.  I remember when ACL a couple of years back only had one sexual assault reported by a rideshare rider against a driver and it was a RIDE incident.

God that was perfect.

Back to the subject at hand - this was two guys looking for trouble who found it in each other.  This driver should be given no mercy.

Edited July 31, 2020 by Cajun

[3adays 454]

Rideshare game is serious business. This happened at 183/Burnet last night. We also had another rideshare shooting on Tuesday. 

 

https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/one-person-injured-in-overnight-rideshare-shooting-in-north-austin

 

 

 

 

[Cajun 11,706]

@BurntEyes

You a fan of Ann Kitchen and her ginning up of fear over imagined Lyft/Uber driver bloodlust and sexual predation in order to satisfy her benefactors in the taxi unions?

Say it ain't so!

Edited July 31, 2020 by Cajun

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

15 minutes ago, Cajun said:

@BurntEyes

You a fan of Ann Kitchen and her ginning up of fear over imagined Lyft/Uber driver bloodlust and sexual predation in order to satisfy her benefactors in the taxi unions?

Say it ain't so!

I think he was saying more than one good thing can come from it, (besides the Kitchen issue) the second thing being putting a stop to low-carry in public.  

[Brisketexan 105,151]

22 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I disagree on the one good thing.

Driver intent aside, I'm hoping that we can still get some legislation passed moving low ready carrying of a carbine out of the acceptable definition of slung.

This.  And while we won't get it out of this....I'd sure like a re-examination of "stand your ground" laws, particularly when outside of your home.  They sure do seem to give folks the ability to be a significant cause of a confrontation, perhaps dancing right up to (but not crossing) the legal line of "provoked," and then escalating the confrontation by using a gun.

The rule of society should be that you avoid using deadly force against another human being unless truly necessary to protect yourself or others from a threat of imminent harm that you did not have a material role in bringing about.  And again, I'm fine with a lower standard inside the four walls of your own home -- no duty to retreat there.  But too many people are looking at public possession of a firearm as an excuse for them to get in some shit, and then blow away "the bad guys" (whoever that might be in their mind).

It sure looks like what BOTH parties did in this exchange was "wrong" -- even if not in the sense of being in strict violation of the law as it stands today, for sure in the sense of what most of sane society would think the right outcomes should be.

Don't start shit.  And if having a firearm on you makes you cavalier enough to start shit, even if it's not full-on provocation, that's a problem enough.  And if you carry a firearm in a way that is intended to intimidate another person (that is, anything but holstered or slung, out of immediate reach), that's a problem too. 

[VABuckeye 2,472]

The person in the photo with the letter and the person next to the attached tweets don't look at all like the same person to me.  If it is then, as noted, he's dug himself his own grave.  If it's not, once again the social media mob has attacked the wrong person.

[Brisketexan 105,151]

4 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

I think he was saying more than one good thing can come from it, (besides the Kitchen issue) the second thing being putting a stop to low-carry in public.  

No, he was saying that he loves Oklahoma football, hates curvy women, and is thinking of becoming vegan.  You have to read between the lines with old Burnt Eyes.

[Brisketexan 105,151]

6 minutes ago, VABuckeye said:

The person in the photo with the letter and the person next to the attached tweets don't look at all like the same person to me.  If it is then, as noted, he's dug himself his own grave.  If it's not, once again the social media mob has attacked the wrong person.

Oh, and NEVER discount this possibility.  Because we all know, social media is infallible.

And the profile pic of that gal who friended me with a message of "hi, handsome!" is totally really her, and she's clearly in to me.

[RollLeft 5,045]

9 hours ago, Hate said:

What a dumbass.  I don't know how this is eventually going to play out, but I have no sympathy for him if it doesn't go his way.  He should have stayed far far away from downtown.  It's one thing to feel that way,  but quite another to feel that way and then put yourself into a position to actually act upon it. 

Yes he is. I also don't pity Perry if he now gets fucked.  I doubt he gets a guilty verdict but I hope he's lost most of his public support after those stupid posts.  Fucking dumbass.  I'm pro 2nd but open carry, in public, is just stupid.  Or then again maybe its working and taking out the idoits.  

[Cajun 11,706]

1 hour ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

I think he was saying more than one good thing can come from it, (besides the Kitchen issue) the second thing being putting a stop to low-carry in public.  

Me = Truman

[Cajun 11,706]

1 hour ago, RollLeft said:

Yes he is. I also don't pity Perry if he now gets fucked.  I doubt he gets a guilty verdict but I hope he's lost most of his public support after those stupid posts.  Fucking dumbass.  I'm pro 2nd but open carry, in public, is just stupid.  Or then again maybe its working and taking out the idoits.  

Guys like Perry do more harm to 2A than anyone.

[Cajun 11,706]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

No, he was saying that he loves Oklahoma football, hates curvy women, and is thinking of becoming vegan.  You have to read between the lines with old Burnt Eyes.

A goddamned vegan?!!!!

[Brisketexan 105,151]

1 minute ago, Cajun said:

A goddamned vegan?!!!!

You just knew you couldn't trust him.

[Cajun 11,706]

I’ll bet he’s got a starter man-bun and a fucking Vespa on layaway.

[Armybrat 40,850]

3 hours ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Wonder what ride service he was driving for.  They might be a little upset about the gun.

He ain’t the only ride share driver who carries (contrary to their rules).

[Dahobbs 17,545]

3 hours ago, VABuckeye said:

The person in the photo with the letter and the person next to the attached tweets don't look at all like the same person to me.  If it is then, as noted, he's dug himself his own grave.  If it's not, once again the social media mob has attacked the wrong person.

Yeah, I looked at that a lot when it first got posted. The difference in facial hair makes it really difficult to tell along with the low resolution of the twitter profile picture. But, KXAN has a better picture that more clearly looks like the guy in the twitter picture. 

 

https://www.kxan.com/news/everything-we-know-about-daniel-perry/

Pretty sure it is the same guy. Really surprising how different he looks from the army uniform picture provided by his lawyer.

Funny thing, I remember reading his tweet at some point prior to all of this. 

[MillerEP 30,469]

Yeah the lawyer's document says he is active duty, with that beard, either he grows it fucking fast over a weekend, or he isn't active duty anymore.

Edited July 31, 2020 by MillerEP

[Dahobbs 17,545]

4 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

Yeah the lawyer's document says he is active duty, with that beard, either he grows it fucking fast over a weekend, or he isn't active duty anymore.

Yeah, I'm assuming that army picture is quite old. 

[RollLeft 5,045]

7 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

You say those like they are a bad thing.

I'll have you know, I also have a 1997 Corvette and in just 5 years that bad boy will be fully paid off.

I'll need a w2 to verify you are able to make those payments.

[Js1 85,353]

16 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yeah, I'm assuming that army picture is quite old. 

You never know what your news photo might be

[ABSR 5,315]

42 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

You say those like they are a bad thing.

I'll have you know, I also have a 1997 Corvette and in just 5 years that bad boy will be fully paid off.

Bought it new?

[4th and 5 4,914]

7 hours ago, 3adays said:

So, Shaggy Law Dawgs, what’s the quality of defense Mr. Perry has bought himself with the Law Firm of Broden and Mickelson? I mean I’d be a bit concerned when my lawyers can’t even get the date of the incident correct in their press release. 

They’re good. They have done high profile cases. Like Waco bikers. 
 

maybe they are not the best at proofreading press releases though....

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  And while we won't get it out of this....I'd sure like a re-examination of "stand your ground" laws, particularly when outside of your home.  They sure do seem to give folks the ability to be a significant cause of a confrontation, perhaps dancing right up to (but not crossing) the legal line of "provoked," and then escalating the confrontation by using a gun.

The rule of society should be that you avoid using deadly force against another human being unless truly necessary to protect yourself or others from a threat of imminent harm that you did not have a material role in bringing about.  And again, I'm fine with a lower standard inside the four walls of your own home -- no duty to retreat there.  But too many people are looking at public possession of a firearm as an excuse for them to get in some shit, and then blow away "the bad guys" (whoever that might be in their mind).

It sure looks like what BOTH parties did in this exchange was "wrong" -- even if not in the sense of being in strict violation of the law as it stands today, for sure in the sense of what most of sane society would think the right outcomes should be.

Don't start shit.  And if having a firearm on you makes you cavalier enough to start shit, even if it's not full-on provocation, that's a problem enough.  And if you carry a firearm in a way that is intended to intimidate another person (that is, anything but holstered or slung, out of immediate reach), that's a problem too. 

Totally agree

[hayden_horn 11,362]

yeah, this guy has a shady social media past, but none of it screams "intent" to me.

[AUS-97HORN 11,781]

if that really is the shooter, I am totally stunned that he didnt

A) lock down his public social media right after

B) delete that shit.  (who gives a fuck if its tampering with evidence- you know you just killed a guy, better to take that charge rather than have it be used against you in a trial)

 

[RollLeft 5,045]

44 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

How many times are you going to request this?

I know you're really trying to get me to self dox so you can stalk me you fucking pervert.

On a side note, I have never, EVER, been a fan of the corvette, sans the original Stingray.  Then the 2020 came out and i am forced to reconsider my position.  If that wasn't enough what do you they call it?  The Stingray.  I have some self loathing for all the shit talking ive done over the years about the Vette.  Dammit.  

[washparkhorn 9,939]

8 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

yeah, this guy has a shady social media past, but none of it screams "intent" to me.

The legal question is whether having a plan to kill (Bring those long-haired hippies to Texas, Mr. President, and we will show you how Texas deals with them) negates the claim of self-defense. 

An NYU note on the intersection of self-defense and malice aforethought. https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NYULawReview-91-4-Spies.pdf 

TLDR: Tricky issue.  

 

[RollLeft 5,045]

4 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The legal question is whether having a plan to kill (Bring those long-haired hippies to Texas, Mr. President, and we will show you how Texas deals with them) negates the claim of self-defense. 

An NYU note on the intersection of self-defense and malice aforethought. https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NYULawReview-91-4-Spies.pdf 

TLDR: Tricky issue.  

 

Its just too much of a stretch to say he had intent and or a plan to do what he did after picking up passengers(strangers) from a hot spot.  I don't buy it.  

Edited July 31, 2020 by RollLeft

[washparkhorn 9,939]

1 hour ago, MillerEP said:

Yeah the lawyer's document says he is active duty, with that beard, either he grows it fucking fast over a weekend, or he isn't active duty anymore.

Pretty sure the Army changed its regulations to allow beards for those who practice Norse pagan religions or those following religious edicts from established faiths (e.g., Sikhs). But it has been a couple of years since I looked at the issue - so I could be more ignorant than an 0kie when it comes to the starting time for land rushes. 

[Cajun 11,706]

1 hour ago, BurntEyes said:

You say those like they are a bad thing.

I'll have you know, I also have a 1997 Corvette 

That's a weird thing to call a scooter.

[Captainant 27,678]

7 minutes ago, RollLeft said:

Its just too much of a stretch to say he had intent and or a plan to do what he did after picking up passengers(strangers) from a hot spot.  I don't buy it.  

I don't think he left his house looking to run down some protesters, but it's not a stretch to say he meant to drive into that crowd.

Look at his his social media history of openly advocating armed violence against protesters and consider that he ran a red light to drive into the middle of a crowd of protesters and then shot five rounds at a protester.

Two different assaults with two different deadly weapons from a person who had previously been arrested in 2005 for assaulting a family member causing bodily harm.

[Gourmand 7,774]

38 minutes ago, RollLeft said:

Its just too much of a stretch to say he had intent and or a plan to do what he did after picking up passengers(strangers) from a hot spot.  I don't buy it.  

Not a stretch at all if the assumption is he intentionally put himself in the midst of that protest, which is a very reasonable conclusion given the available video evidence that night.

He created the situation, he escalated the situation, and he finished the situation. And we're just supposed to take him at his word when he has every motivation to lie? He deserves very little benefit of the doubt. 

[BERT 4,360]

5 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, and NEVER discount this possibility.  Because we all know, social media is infallible.

And the profile pic of that gal who friended me with a message of "hi, handsome!" is totally really her, and she's clearly in to me.

You lucky bastard!!!

51 minutes ago, RollLeft said:

On a side note, I have never, EVER, been a fan of the corvette, sans the original Stingray.  Then the 2020 came out and i am forced to reconsider my position.  If that wasn't enough what do you they call it?  The Stingray.  I have some self loathing for all the shit talking ive done over the years about the Vette.  Dammit.  

If the widebody c6 vettes (z06 and grandsport) didn't turn you back on to the vettes then I'm very surprised the new ones did. 

32 minutes ago, Cajun said:

That's a weird thing to call a scooter.

Being a '97 it's probably about as fast as a scooter. 

[4th and 5 4,914]

Here is the law.

I have boldfaced what I believe will be the contested issues that will be submitted in the jury charge.
 

I've struck thru the things that I believe will not be relevant

 

NOTE: first of all, use of force or deadly force for self defense is a "defense" under the TPC Ch 9, therefore this law applies:

 

Sec. 2.03. DEFENSE.
(a) A defense to prosecution for an offense in this code is so labeled by the phrase: "It is a defense to prosecution . . . ."

(b) The prosecuting attorney is not required to negate the existence of a defense in the accusation charging commission of the offense.

(c) The issue of the existence of a defense is not submitted to the jury unless evidence is admitted supporting the defense.

(d) If the issue of the existence of a defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge that a reasonable doubt on the issue requires that the defendant be acquitted.

 

NOTE: So the state has to disprove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defense does not apply. This is a huge hurdle for the state, who has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and then disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

NOTE: if there was a passenger in the car, he will also likely get a jury charge on deadly force to protect a third party

 

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

 

NOTE: the above clause of section (a) is the general rule, and within it is a presumption that is submitted in the jury charge if there is some evidence of it. If the state fails to eliminate reasonable doubt as to one of the elements (1-3) below the jury must follow the presumption, and presume the actor’s belief that the force used was immediately necessary was reasonable. This is huge in a self defense case. If the jury has reasonable doubt whether these circumstances existed, it is devastating for the state’s case.  

 

(section (a), cont’d) The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

 

NOTE: the use of force may not be justified under certain circumstances in this case and there will be a jury charge on this issue. If the state can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that one of these circumstances existed, then it is a huge win for the state.

 

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or

(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

 

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

 

NOTE: The above is the rule for use of force for self defense, not the use of deadly force for self defense which is in 9.32, so we have to look at 9.32 as well due to 9.31(d) and 9.32(a)(1).

 

Sec. 9.32.  DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.

 

NOTE: section (a) is the general rule on deadly force.

 

(a)  A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1)  if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2)   when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A)  to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B)  to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

 

 

NOTE: the same “presumed reasonable if…” elements that we looked at in 9.31 above also apply in 9.32 below.

 

 

(b)  The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1)  knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A)  unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B)  unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C)  was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2)  did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3)  was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

 

 

NOTE: similarly, section (c) and (d) in 9.32 is the same as 9.31(e) and (f) and creates an instruction for the jury, where applicable

 

 

(c)  A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

 

(d)  For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

 

 

NOTE: if the state fails to disprove this beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury gets an instruction that they shall not consider whether the actor failed to retreat in determining whether the actor reasonably believed that deadly force was immediately necessary under the circumstances.

 

 

[Post Oak 20,221]

5 hours ago, RollLeft said:

Yes he is. I also don't pity Perry if he now gets fucked.  I doubt he gets a guilty verdict but I hope he's lost most of his public support after those stupid posts.  Fucking dumbass.  I'm pro 2nd but open carry, in public, is just stupid.  Or then again maybe its working and taking out the idoits.  

The ones who support people like Perry don't let things like words and facts get in the way of their feelings.

 

[VABuckeye 2,472]

3 minutes ago, Post Oak said:

The ones who support people like Perry don't let things like words and facts get in the way of their feelings.

 

Until it's proven that is his Twitter account nor do the ones on the opposite side who are ready to convict the guy in the court of public opinion.  I'd rather let the facts play out.

[Gourmand 7,774]

5 minutes ago, VABuckeye said:

Until it's proven that is his Twitter account nor do the ones on the opposite side who are ready to convict the guy in the court of public opinion.  I'd rather let the facts play out.

Of course it's the same person.

Here's his tweet history.....

https://pastebin.com/VD80U4bK

 

So it's just a big coincidence that the Daniel Perry from Fort Hood, Tx who goes by the Twitter handle @knivesfromtrigu just recently deleted his Twitter?

[VABuckeye 2,472]

I'm not saying it's a coincidence.  I'd just like to see it confirmed by someone other than social justice warrior social media mob member.  🙂

If you read my post from last night you'd know that if it's confirmed to be him then he deserves everything that comes his way.

[Gourmand 7,774]

I'm not saying it's a coincidence.  I'd just like to see it confirmed by someone other than social justice warrior social media mob member.  
If you read my post from last night you'd know that if it's confirmed to be him then he deserves everything that comes his way.

The profile pic matches. The location matches. It's the same person. If it was some other Daniel Perry who tweeted that now is the time for taking up guns, I think his lawyers would have included that in their press release.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[washparkhorn 9,939]

41 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

This is where malice aforethought may negate the defense. If one goes looking for a fight in order to carry out the malice planned in response to the provocation, self-defense is not appropriate. I would remove the strike-out from your analysis and leave it as an open issue. 

[Js1 85,353]

6 hours ago, VABuckeye said:

The person in the photo with the letter and the person next to the attached tweets don't look at all like the same person to me.  If it is then, as noted, he's dug himself his own grave.  If it's not, once again the social media mob has attacked the wrong person.

 

37 minutes ago, VABuckeye said:

Until it's proven that is his Twitter account nor do the ones on the opposite side who are ready to convict the guy in the court of public opinion.  I'd rather let the facts play out.

 

27 minutes ago, VABuckeye said:

I'm not saying it's a coincidence.  I'd just like to see it confirmed by someone other than social justice warrior social media mob member.  🙂

If you read my post from last night you'd know that if it's confirmed to be him then he deserves everything that comes his way.

Just be honest.  You are unable to see the middle of this issue.  It's ok, but you are absolutely so skewed to one side of the issue that you're incapable of reasonable discussion which is honestly sad.  The problem with that is like most things the truth and the solution lies somewhere in the middle of this shitstorm.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

Wow this one was prescient.

Quote

Daniel Perry on Twitter: "My greatest fear is when the mobs attack an armed individual doesn’t matter if the person is left or the person is right and that deadly force is used resulting in either extreme mass hysteria or the mobs stopping.… https://t.co/vzps7jFYuy"

 

[Fondren & Main 6,718]

Considering he only shot the guy with a gun and didn't kill anyone else makes me think that he would get off regardless of what he tweeted.

However, I feel like he's facing a civil lawsuit that will bleed his finances dry.  He better have insurance.

[washparkhorn 9,939]

It would be interesting to check his ride log and, if he had passengers, speak with them regarding his statements and state of mind. 

[Halohal 498]

[XYZ 2,154]

32 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

He better have insurance.

Like, murder insurance? I don’t think there’s insurance for that.

[Fondren & Main 6,718]

1 hour ago, XYZ said:

Like, murder insurance? I don’t think there’s insurance for that.

Texas Law Shield.  There’s insurance for people who carry.  Not sure how well it works though.