TexasCHLforum.com

tomneal wrote: Sat Apr 08, 2023 2:07 pm Pardon?:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/wil ... e-shooting

powerboatr wrote: Sat Apr 08, 2023 7:46 pm if soros acted criminally....then arrest his old butt and take him to task or trial and be done with this horses dairy aire

srothstein wrote: Sat Apr 08, 2023 11:33 pm If you call or contact the pardons and parole board, ask them to make the pardon on the grounds of actual innocence. Those words in the pardon will allow his record to be expunged and will let him file a claim against the state for compensation for his illegal incarceration.

TBH, I think his military career is over now no matter what happens. That is a loss to the Army.

rtschl wrote: Mon Apr 10, 2023 11:43 am Andrew Branca, who wrote the Law of Self Defense, wrote article below and he thinks the conviction was legally sound. I have to admit, his analysis from a legal perspective challenged my views on this case. Perry really hurt himself with his social media posts prior to the incident and that was used against him.

Some lessons everyone should take away from this case no matter what:
* Don't post stupid, idiotic stuff that can and WILL be used against you. That includes this forum or other friendly places
* Don't go looking for a fight
* Especially don't post that you're looking for a fight, even in jest or in frustration of current events
* Always try to deescalate and avoid a fight if you can

Perry may very well have just been venting online and there is no question that Antifa/BLM rioters were and still are dangers to society. I'm willing to give him and anyone the benefit of doubt on that due to the fact cities were being burned down and authorities were standing down police all across the US. But it looks like his own posts came back to bite him. Since he was the only witness to claim Foster pointed the rifle at him, the jury never heard it, because he never testified. That is his right, but that may have hurt him too.

Branca wrote the following near the end of the article:
First, on an emotional level this was not a particularly easy analysis for me to write. I’ve shot guns since childhood, I’ve carried a gun for personal protection essentially every day of my adult life, I’m an NRA Life-Benefactor member, I’m a decades-long NRA Certified Instructor in pistol, rifle, and personal protection, I’m on the political Right, and I believe George Soros and the prosecutors he funds to be political enemies of my nation.

But a proper legal analysis must be done rationally, independent of emotion and political or other biases. The evidence and the law must guide us in our analysis. Sometimes the destination we arrive at will be unpleasant. That does not make it legally unsound, however, and forcing a legal conclusion to satisfy emotional and political desires is simply not sound legal analysis.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/04/d ... lly-sound/

If the jury concluded that Foster had not, in fact, pointed his rifle at Perry, then it must also conclude that it was Perry who was the initial deadly force aggressor in this confrontation when he shot Foster—and, as the initial deadly force aggressor Perry cannot justify his use of force as self-defense.

Paladin wrote: Mon Apr 10, 2023 12:17 pm

If the jury concluded that Foster had not, in fact, pointed his rifle at Perry, then it must also conclude that it was Perry who was the initial deadly force aggressor in this confrontation when he shot Foster—and, as the initial deadly force aggressor Perry cannot justify his use of force as self-defense.

I have never heard of having to wait until a firearm is actually pointed at you to be a firm requirement of self-defense. Try some force-on-force. I doubt there would be many survivors of such a real world defense strategy as to wait until the firearm is actually pointed at you before you can react.