Uber driver found guilty by 12

He’s not carried by six but judged by 12.

A Travis County jury on Friday found Uber driver Daniel Perry guilty of murder in the shooting death of Austin protester Garrett Foster in 2020. The jury deliberated 17 hours over two days to reach its decision after an eight-day trial. The jury also found Perry not guilty of an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in connection to driving in front of another protester.


Discussion could be under Self-Defense or Legal & Second Amendment.


I’m seeing (Foster deceased, Perry the shooter)

"During the trial, multiple witnesses came forth to discuss the demeanor Perry held during the encounter with Foster and following the shooting, as well as the energy of the protesters and how Foster was holding his gun. Among those who testified were fellow protesters, a citizen journalist, crime scene specialists, a firearms examiner and the medical examiner who performed Foster’s autopsy, among others.

The jury was also shown videos and photos, and the State shared social media posts to back-up their claim that Perry had threatened protestors in the past. "

"The state, relied on some of its strongest evidence during closing arguments: Perry’s social media posts talking about anti-protest/pro-police feelings, and private messages between Perry and a friend talking about a similar situation where a driver shot a protester six weeks prior to the shooting in Austin.

“These conversations with Michael Holcomb are starting to look like a playbook for what you would do if you wanted to use force,” the state argued. “He said, ‘I will repeatedly say,’ not, ‘I would be in fear for my life, this is terrifying,’ that, I’m going to say, ‘I’m in fear for my life.’ All of that is in Daniel Perry’s head…when he drove into this crowd.”


Foster was completely within his rights to point AK47 at random Uber driver he had never seen before. Perry had no reason to fear death, its ok if he took a bullet in the name of social justice.

Says Austin jury!


BUT, if it was an AR (ASSAULT RIFLE):interrobang:


It is a very ominous and chilling verdict. It empowers the mob to terrorize passers by. It allies the power of Law and Order with the terror mob, not with the innocent civilian where it belongs, not to mention Law and Order has food on its table thanks to the taxes paid by the innocent civilian, while the mob wants to defund them.


Two questions come to mind:

  1. If someone provokes a confrontation which ends in the provoker shooting the person provoked, who’s liable?

  2. If someone points an AK-47 at someone when they are provoking with a car (arguably a deadly weapon, depending on how it’s being driven), and the driver of the car then shoots the person with the '47, who is liable?

Emotions aside, I think a jury would have to determine who initiated the conflict and if the response(s) was commensurate with the actual threat.

Lawyers, please comment.


Good question.

That’s how crucial avoidance is.


So far I have seen about 2% of the relevant information I would need to make an informed opinion.

Granted, I haven’t looked very hard, but reading a couple sentences basically across a couple articles…is very little to go on regarding what actually happened


Ditto! It would be interesting to hear from members of the jury, especially those who were leaning not guilty and then changed their mind(s).

At a high level, an a-hole brings an AK to a “peaceful protest” and is involved in stopping cars and terrifying the occupants. He clearly went there with the intent to terrorize. On the other hand, Uber usually routes drivers around traffic issues to reduce wait times for the passengers. Did he ignore the mapping SW and drive into the protest anyway? Being pro-LE and anti protestor is irrelevant IMHO but can emotionally sway a jury. But was there other evidence that he went there looking for a fight?

I remember seeing a video from Mas Ayoob about this kind of thing and why it’s so critical to avoid the situation entirely. The crowds are a mix of violent protestors, but also peaceful people. And even those prone to violence will have varying degrees to which they’ll go. So now you’ve put yourself in a situation of having to defend every interaction with hundreds of people and starting from drawing your weapon (brandishing) to every round that’s fired, the deck is stacked against you. The odds go up pretty quickly that you’ll be found guilty of one or more counts of all the charges that a Soros funded DA is going to throw at you. The complexity of defending it goes way up and the devil’s in the details.


If he survived, he should absolutely be in jail. You bring an AK to a protest organized by people who have a well established reputation of violence and terrorizing people… you belong in jail. But they can’t file charges against him which keeps the public “story” around this very one sided.


Bringing a gun somewhere public where other people who might be violent also are…should land one in jail?

Are we sure carrying a gun should land one in jail because of other people’s presence or actions?

Or is it only semi auto rifles that are being singled out as criminal to keep and bear?


FYI Texas Governor Abbott is working on a pardon.


I mean in terms of being a participant in that protest and bringing a firearm, especially open carrying a rifle, which at a minimum constitutes brandishing given the nature of those protests. BLM & Antifa have a well established track record of turning violent. So when someone participates in one of those protests and shows up with an AK, one can reasonably conclude that the AK was brought there for offense, not defense. Antifa & BLM have been playing offense, not defense. It’s like when the pallets of bricks were found to have been delivered to planned protest sites prior to the protest starting. Those bricks were delivered specifically to be thrown through windows of stores, cars, and at opponents. Because of the nature of the participants in those protests, those bricks went from being passive objects to being weapons. IMHO, it’s easy to establish the intent to do harm. He brought that AK for the specific purpose of terrorizing people and committing violent crime.


So it should be illegal and result in jail time if a person goes to a protest and carries a firearm also?

Or should it only be illegal to attend a protest while open carrying a rifle?

So like this should have resulted in them being arrested?

I am a little concerned with the suggestion that open carrying a rifle is only being done for offensive and should result in arrest and jail time if done at a “protest”

Kyle Rittenhouse went to a protest and open carried a rifle…he should be in jail because he only brought it for offense? ?


In FL, it is illegal to bring a firearm to a “place of nuisance”. Not sure if TX has a similar law on the books, but in my mind, any place where Antifa and Burn-Loot-Murder movement conduct their not-so-peaceful protests meets the definition of a place of nuisance.
By contrast, in armed VA rally, how many cars have been impeded from passing? Any beatings, robberies, rapes by the 20000 armed Americans occurred? How come 1 armed Antifa immediately harassed and threatened an Uber driver with a deadly weapon? That is because this is what Antifa is about.


So it is or should be illegal to be armed to defend yourself wherever a mob or protest shows up? That sounds dangerous (lack of ability to defend ones self) and in direct violation of the Constitution and the Second Amendment.


I’m not sure what these questions are being asked for.

Do you propose we use hindsight to retroactively determine whether a person should be jailed based on whether or not other people who were at that location committed crimes? Like, you go somewhere, you are carrying, other people throw bricks, now you go to jail?

I’m just trying to understand what you think should be illegal when it comes to going to jail for carrying of a firearm based on the actions of others

By these standards, should Rittenhouse be in jail because people there were committing crimes?


The Antifa guy was legal and cool up until the precise moment he leveled his AK. At which point he was at least guilty of brandishing and A-O-J triangle came together.


I may be missing some key evidence.

Is there a video or photo I can see that shows the moment he leveled his AK?

Or testimony from a disinterested third party at least?

Still having a hard time finding out what actually happened