On July 25, 2020, Garrett Foster pointed an AK-47 at Daniel Perry. Perry raised his weapon and shot Foster three times in self-defense. On Monday, April 10th 2023, a jury found Perry guilty of murdering Garrett Foster.
Wait, what?
If you’d like the facts of the case, you can read about them here. Lawyers are gonna lawyer but nothing changes the fact that Daniel Perry had reasonable fear for his life and took measures to defend himself. The simple application of the law in Texas and most other states is exactly that: you have a right to defend yourself against bodily harm when you are in fear of your life. Garrett Foster could have been holding any kind of weapon – a bat, a pen, a frying pan, a knitting needle – and it wouldn’t have changed Perry’s rights under Texas law. Every police officer, every security professional, everyone with a concealed carry license, and every responsible gun owner understands this legal principle. You’re allowed to defend yourself when you fear for your life.
So how is it that a jury convicted Perry of murder? The legal term for this is jury nullification.
“[A] jury’s knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law either because the jury wants to send a message about some social issue that is larger than the case itself or because the result dictated by law is contrary to the jury’s sense of justice, morality, or fairness.” – Black’s Law Dictionary
Jury nullification happens, just ask the families of Nichole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. That is one issue at play with this case. Another is a toxic cloud enveloping courtrooms and District Attorneys’ offices across the nation – the misapplication of the law. There may be a third, but we’ll get to that in a moment.
In the case of Daniel Perry and practically every J6 defendant, all legal precedent and legal applicability factors were thrown out the window. In a sane world none of these people would ever have been charged – not for misdemeanor trespassing in a public building, or even for shooting a person who points a gun at you. But sanity and law are increasingly divorced from cases filling court dockets nowadays. Political operatives behind the controls of America’s justice system are on a quest to disarm and pacify those pesky freedom-minded people who still take the Constitution at face value. Fanatical DAs and US Attorneys charge and prosecute whoever they want, justice, direct evidence, and legal rationale be damned. Even former presidents of the United States are fair game in their twisted universe where the only thing that matters is sending a message. Shut up, surrender your rights and guns, or go to jail.
This is draconian. Worse, it’s terrorism.
The political Left and a sizable portion of those on the Right want to make an example of anyone who threatens their way of life. Expose their culpability in crimes large and small and you may find yourself in the legal crosshairs of their new RESTRICT Act. Make a meme and you might get charged with interfering with an election. Defend yourself against a mob – like the crowd of people pounding on Daniel Perry’s car in the middle of an intersection while a guy stood at his window holding an AK-47 – and you might get charged with murder. They first tried this with Kyle Rittenhouse, but his jury didn’t buy it. They couldn’t let that happen again.
The Uniparty’s goal is to silence anyone still willing to stand up to them. It’s lawfare. It’s also criminal. The great beauty of the American legal system is that We The People get to decide the innocence or guilt of those charged, based on the facts of the crime.
But do we?
Who decides what evidence is presented and what is ignored? And perhaps more importantly, who creates the pool of citizens that the lawyers select jurors from?
An interesting question was posited by Joe Oltmann and his producer on a recent episode of Conservative Daily: How often are conservatives called for jury duty? In thinking about that question, you probably started pondering how often you’ve been called and how often your spouse or grown children have served. For me and my family the answer to that question since 2018 is once. Three adults – two 46-year-olds, one 22-year-old, and an 18-year-old, and only one jury summons in five years…in a borough of 101,000 people. Since 1994 when my wife and I turned 18 and registered as “undeclared,” we’ve been summoned to appear for jury selection exactly twice in all that time. And the attorneys zipped me out of there the second they discovered I have a cop in my family.
How about you and your family?
Does there seem to be a correlation between political party registration and jury pools? We’ve always believed it was a random process but if you run the probability factors I’m guessing you’re going to see a correlation between political affiliation and jury summons. How does that work? Computers randomly select members of the eligible population for jury selection. But did you know that the Federal Elections Commission keeps track of every penny you send to political candidates and causes? Look up any name you can think of, and you can see exactly to what degree their pocketbook aligns with their politics.
That’s just a theory, but let’s pull on those strings and start asking around because it makes a lot of sense when you consider the verdicts being handed down in prominent cases lately, with juries hell-bent on ignoring law and precedent dishing out disproportionate verdicts on those who stand up to tyranny.
Add into all of that the mountains of exculpatory evidence being withheld in these cases, and it becomes even clearer that something rotten is festering in the once respectable halls of America’s judicial system. It may be comforting to some that Texas Governor Gregg Abbott has already announced his intention to pardon Daniel Perry. The evidence of Perry’s innocence is that clear. However, I see a tremendous danger in going that route and calling it a day. The fact of the matter in Texas and elsewhere is that the administration of justice should never come down to whims of politicians, because if this case played out in California or Illinois, the man defending his life would still be innocent of a crime, but you could never get the current governors of those states to do anything about it.
You can follow me on Telegram, Substack, Truth Social, and Gab. You can also reach me on Twitter, but I don’t post there very often because I still don’t trust them yet.
You can subscribe to receive new posts to your inbox as well as get information on my latest novel, book four in my modern war series.
Looking for a fun new story to share as a family? Check out The Dread Pirate Roberts, my fan fiction sequel to The Princess Bride now available for free in its entirety.
Need a break this weekend from the political battle? Do you love movies? Do you love having pointless arguments with friends and strangers about movies? If so, you’ll love Movie Fight Club, a weekly opportunity to have pointless arguments with strangers about movies.
How it works:
Every Saturday a new movie question is posted. It’s free to watch the fight ringside, but subscribers get to participate and compete with other fighters answering the question. Whoever gets the most likes on their answer gets the honor of choosing the next week’s question.
Subscribe for free to follow the comments and vote on answers. Paid subscribers get to participate.