Comments Made by Daniel Perry, Released by Travis County Judge
It's been difficult to get a handle on this particular case based on the information that has come out during the trial of Daniel Perry in Austin, Texas, on murder charges. Perry, a 33 year old, ex-army sergeant, was driving for Uber in downtown Austin when he encountered a protest against police brutality in the wake of the George Floyd murder. He honked at the protesters, then drove his car into the crowd near 28 year old Garrett Foster, an Air Force veteran who was legally carrying an AK-47. Perry, who was also armed, shot Foster and fled the scene, later calling police and claiming that Foster had threatened him with his weapon, leading to a self-defense shooting.
The jury correctly perceived that Perry did not shoot in self defense, as he claimed, since he had been the aggressor, driving his car into the crowd. Perry claimed that Foster had "raised his rifle" toward him, posing a legitimate threat under Texas's "stand your ground" law, permitting use of a firearm for self defense if there is perceived danger. But the jury wasn't convinced, since witnesses said Foster didn't threaten with his weapon, and at any rate, Perry had just driven his car right into the protest, making him the aggressor.
The Right Wing Politics of Racism is an Issue Here, Even Though the Victim was White
Bringing in the racist texts and social media comments made by Perry in the past was part of the sentencing phase of the trial. The defense, of course, is trying to prove that Perry, who also happens to be Jewish, is a good ole boy. Texas can sentence someone to life in prison for murder, even at this level, where five years would be standard. Not only do these comments put the potential sentence in perspective, and underline the fact that the jury got this right, it sure makes Abbott look bad. He already had his mind made up, and wasn't going to change it.
The governor has been siding with Perry and pushing for a pardon since this started, before the revelation of Perry's racist comments. Why would a governor who had previously been the Attorney General, want to interfere with a jury trial and overturn the results of the rule of law? I haven't observed much respect coming from Greg Abbott for the rule of law. This is a repeat of the Kyle Rittenhouse farce, except this time, there wasn't any evidence that the victim threatened the shooter, who was using a car as a weapon along with his assault rifle. Many of the protesters were African American, and it was being led by Black Lives Matter. Of course Governor Abbott would side with a racist shooter aiming to take out protesters.
Aside from the racism that is clearly a factor here, is the issue of the rule of law. The jury did not find that the defendant met the burden of proof required for acting under Texas' "stand your ground" statute, a draconian law that permits armed civilians to commit murder if they can convince a court that they would have somehow been a victim if they hadn't taken the first shot. The standards for proving this in Texas courts are very low. A corroborating witness and a dead body within close proximity of where the shot was taken are just about all the proof Texans need to shoot anyone they want for any reason. There are cases in Texas where stolen guns have been found on victim's bodies just to make the "stand your ground" defense work to perfection.
A large crowd of Black Lives Matter protesters, on the streets of Austin, Texas, isn't Abbott's kind of political activity. And I'd be willing to bet that's exactly why he's so hot to get a pardon for a deranged, gun-toting racist. It appears that the prosecution and the judge, anticipating Abbott's unconscionable interference with the rule of law in getting around a jury verdict, are laying the groundwork to grab Perry on federal charges, and also to open the door to civil suits. One of his posts mentions his family's wealth. I say, go for it.
An Enemy of the Constitution
If Abbott succeeds in following through with this pardon, it will be clear evidence of his complete lack of respect for the rule of law. Trial by jury is one of the constitutional rights that supports the very foundational principles of this country. I would suggest that the governor read some of the spewed vitriol coming from his fellow extremist conservatives over President Clinton's pardon of Susan McDougal, Patty Hearst, his brother Roger, and Henry Cisneros. All of that rhetoric can be applied to his attempt to get Daniel Perry off the hook, and it makes him look worse than he thinks Clinton was.
So the governor of Texas is standing against the United States Constitution.
A Political Nod to White Supremacy
The murder victim in this shooting episode was white. So how is it that this could involve white supremacy?
It was a Black Lives Matter protest. That was what enraged Perry, enough to cause him to drive his car into the protesters, an act he intended to commit harm. This recent action by the judge in the sentencing phase of the trial, releasing social media posts from Perry, which clearly indicate he was a racist, and which absolutely go to the motive of his actions. He intended to hurt or murder someone in that protest, and Foster, carrying a weapon, gave him what he perceived to be his chance to get away with it.
I do not believe there is any reasoning that justifies the governor of Texas considering a pardon for this man. Abbott's extremism is outside the boundaries of both American values and common decency. A life was taken in an indiscriminate shooting. A jury of the perpetrator's peers has decided justice in his case, and the governor, an attorney and a former attorney general who should know better than to get involved in this, needs to leave it alone.
And he has a chance to get out of what is a terrible political situation of his own creation, by acknowledging the man's bigotry as the motive for his crime, and backing away. If he goes ahead with his plan, then he is complicit with the racism and white supremacy that was behind the whole incident.
I lived in Texas for over 25 years, including during the time when Abbott was rising in power . Texas hasn't had a governor who understood the role of government or who really represented all of the people since Ann Richards. I have no expectations at all that this governor will ever do what's right in situations like this. Frankly, I don't think he cares, since there's enough of the electorate in Texas that buys into extremist lies and conspiracy theories to get just enough votes for people like him to win elections. Abbott doesn't have what it takes to make it on the national stage, but if he has an eye in that direction, incidents like this will come back to haunt him.
Pardons Make it Possible for Some People to Live Above The Law; They Must Go, Along with "Executive Privilege"
As a student of history, with a college degree in it, I understand the reasoning that brought about the power of the pardon. Perfect justice isn't possible among imperfect human beings, especially after the experience most Americans had with the colonial justice system imposed in America to establish British rule in colonies where many of the settlers had ancestry in other countries besides England. At the federal level Presidential pardon power, along with the requirement that the executive appoints, with legislative approval, the judges who run the system, is one of the checks and balances written into the constitution. In most states, it is a similar check and balance on the power of state courts.
It has also become, as time has passed, an increasingly political weapon. Presidents of both political parties have used it, especially as they are leaving office, as a means of favor granting for benefactors, to make political statements about specific crimes or to right what they consider to be a "wrong" in their own mind. The pardon, by state governors and by the President, is one of those checks and balances that has outlived its usefulness. In a politically polarized atmosphere, it has become the means by which the enemies of the people can live above the law. They, along with the ridiculous interpretation of "executive privilege" by the previous justice department, are due to be done away with.
No comments:
Post a Comment