Governor of Texas Greg Abbott issued a pardon for former U.S. Army Sergeant Daniel Perry, who shot and killed an armed demonstrator during a Black Lives Matter protest in Austin, Texas in 2020. Perry was convicted in 2023 of murdering the protestor, Garrett Foster, and has been serving a 25 year sentence.
Board Recommendation
Governor Abbott pardoned Perry the same day the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles unanimously recommended the action. Up until the pardon, Perry had been serving his sentence since he was convicted in 2023. The board also recommended that Perry have his right to firearms restored.
Legal Process
Perry initiated the process for the Board of Pardons and Paroles to review Perry’s case. In Texas, the governor is able to issue a pardon on if it is recommended by the Board. Once the Board has made a recommendation for pardon, the governor may make the official act.
Stand Your Ground Law
The basis for the pardon in Perry’s case was Texas’s “Stand Your Ground” law. Stand Your Ground laws ensure that the right to self-defense takes precedence over efforts by a progressive jury or district attorney to erode that right.
Media Influence
Abbott’s request for the Board to review a pardon for Perry was influenced by public interest and pressure. Specifically, conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson urged Abbott to consider a pardon for Perry. Carlson described the shooting as an act of self-defense.
Public Pressure
Before Perry was sentenced in 2023, Carlson argued that Abbott should have intervened on Perry’s behalf before the sentencing. Following the sentencing, Abbott quickly requested a review of the case from the Board of Pardons and Paroles. He also stated his view that Perry should not face punishment for defending himself.
District Attorney’s Response
The District Attorney who prosecuted Perry in Travis County, Jose Garza, stated that the pardon was a “mockery of our legal system.” Garza further argued that the pardon “….demonstrate that there are two classes of people in this state where some lives matter and some lives do not. They have sent a message to Garrett Foster’s family, to his partner, and to our community that his life does not matter.”
Prosecutors’ Argument
During Perry’s trial, Garza and other prosecutors claimed that Perry could have driven away from the scene rather than shooting Garrett Foster. The prosecution called witnesses who stated that they did not see Foster pull out his gun. The conclusion the prosecutors wanted to draw was that Perry could have left rather than shot Foster.
Defense Argument
The argument for Perry’s defense rested on the claim that Foster raised a rifle at Perry, causing Perry to shoot him in self-defense. The jury deliberated for two days before determining that Perry was guilty of murder.
Reaction to Conviction
When Perry was convicted of murder in 2023, many conservatives were outraged. The July 2020 shooting had long been of public interest, as it circulated in the same media story cycles as the death of George Floyd. And took place at a Black Lives Matter protest. Both Perry and Foster were white.
Unsealed Evidence
Once Perry was convicted by the jury, the court unsealed Perry’s media activities and communications where he shared his opinions on Black Lives Matter protests. Perry did not agree with the protests and expressed hostile views toward them.
Military Background
Perry is a veteran of the U.S. Army, where he served for more than 10 years. Military records reveal that Perry experienced post-traumatic stress disorder from his deployments and childhood experiences.
Incident Details
During the timeframe of the shooting in July 2020, Perry was stationed at Fort Cavazos, in Texas. This period also represents the height of the Black Lives Matter protests across the country.
Continued Controversy
The public has strong opinions on the polarizing topic of Perry’s pardon. The matter centers on issues of self defense, but also involves exerting political pressure on executive branch leaders at the state and national level to cherry-pick cases to pardon based on political alignment.
