War GoFundMe removes page supporting Army sergeant who shot and killed armed Black Lives Matter protester - Kyle Rittenhouse trial on Veteran Difficulty for the Defendent, no pun intended

Article (Archive)

A United States Army sergeant facing a murder charge after shooting a Black Lives Matter protester who approached his vehicle with an AK-47 had his GoFundMe page removed from the site by the company.

Perry’s attorneys confirmed to Fox News Digital that the GoFundMe page for their client, Army. Sgt. Daniel Perry, has been removed.

"It’s an expensive trial to undertake with the need for expert witnesses and stuff and we had a GoFundMe site that’s been taken down and it’s been weighing on him," Perry Attorney Clint Broden told Fox News Digital, adding that Perry’s father had to pay a "significant bond" for his release and that the ordeal has taken a "significant toll" on the family.

On the night of July 25, 2020, at about 9:50 p.m., authorities say Sgt. Daniel Perry was driving for Uber when he encountered a Black Lives Matter protest in downtown Austin, Texas. Perry, an active duty soldier, was stationed at Ft. Hood at the time. The protesters did not have a permit and were reportedly clogging a busy intersection.

After making a right turn onto Austin’s Congress Avenue, Perry’s attorneys say he was swarmed by a group of Black Lives Matter protesters and a masked man, later identified as Garrett Foster, approached his vehicle armed with an AK-47 in the "ready position" as protesters began banging on Perry’s car and throwing bricks.

Believing that Foster was beginning to raise the rifle and that his life was in danger, Perry fired the handgun he kept in his car console multiple times at which point another protester opened fire on him.

The man with the AK-47, Garrett Foster, was fatally wounded.

Roughly a year later, Perry was indicted on murder and aggravated assault charges by Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza who claimed that over 150 pieces of evidence and testimony from 22 witnesses during a three-week court hearing led to the decision to press charges.

Perry’s attorneys say the shooting was a clear case of self-defense and have expressed serious concerns with how the case has been handled by Garza’s office.

"Garrett Foster either intentionally or accidentally pointed his rifle at Daniel Perry’s head and Daniel Perry fired in self-defense," Perry attorney Doug O’Connell told Fox News Digital. "And as a practical matter he had no ability to retreat nor was he required to."

"You have the right to defend yourself in a crowd and you feel like you’re in imminent danger of being shot," Broden added. "That’s what it’s all about. I ask people to put themselves in Sgt. Perry’s position and you have this masked man with an assault rifle ready starting to raise it. I think anybody that had access to a firearm would react the same way."

Texas castle law extends to one's vehicle in some circumstances.

Veteran Detective David Fugitt of the Austin Police Department, the lead investigator on the case who has been on the Austin police force for 27 years, concluded that the shooting was justifiable homicide, but charges were filed anyway, and the veteran detective said in a sworn affidavit that Garza’s office committed witness tampering by preventing the grand jury from seeing exculpatory evidence.

Perry’s attorneys say that those who wish to financially support Perry can still do so via the GoGetFunding crowdfunding platform.

"I can confirm that this fundraiser was reviewed and found to be in violation of GoFundMe Terms of Service, and subsequently removed. GoFundMe prohibits raising money for the legal defense of a violent crime," a GoFundMe spokesperson said in a statement to Fox News Digital.

The platform has previously stated multiple times that it removes pages supporting those who are accused of a "violent crime" but has declined to completely remove pages of others accused of violent crimes in the past.

A trial date has not been set for the case but Perry's lawyers have a call scheduled with a judge on December 15th to review concerns with the grand jury process.
 
I remember this case. Dude who got shot had actually mental problems, and was basically spurred on by his black gf to act tough. Even made some comments right beforehand about shooting people.

Here's his gf btw:
View attachment 2773829

Edit: Correction, he said no one had the balls to do anything since he was carrying.
Oh yeah, didn't he go aggro on the mobbed car because it was, at least in post-rationalization, supposedly a direct threat to running over his wheelchair girlfriend or some such?
 
I remember watching this live. Rittenhouse 2.0 but in Texas. Dude is probably not guilty but there definitely needs to be a law passed that punishes prosecutors for bringing cases like these.
If the investigator is already stating that the DA was hiding exculpatory evidence then its quite likely the case is going to eat shit HARD because the defense is almost certainly going to query him during questioning why this evidence wasn't presented to the grand jury. This case is a bit more difficult than Rittenhouse because Rittenhouse had a minimum of 3 videos at different angles for each incident. This guy has two videos to my knowledge and nothing is visible, just the audio from the gunshots because his car is indeed surrounded by the mob.
 
I remember this case. Dude who got shot had actually mental problems, and was basically spurred on by his black gf to act tough. Even made some comments right beforehand about shooting people.

Here's his gf btw:
View attachment 2773829

Edit: Correction, he said no one had the balls to do anything since he was carrying.
It clicked for me when they mentioned the ak-47. It was the fat retard who missed his shots from point blank.
 
If the investigator is already stating that the DA was hiding exculpatory evidence then its quite likely the case is going to eat shit HARD because the defense is almost certainly going to query him during questioning why this evidence wasn't presented to the grand jury. This case is a bit more difficult than Rittenhouse because Rittenhouse had a minimum of 3 videos at different angles for each incident. This guy has two videos to my knowledge and nothing is visible, just the audio from the gunshots because his car is indeed surrounded by the mob.
Oh no doubt it will eat shit, but win or lose it makes the guys life hell, which is the real goal. Note that this guy wasn't charged until the new DA took over and decided to.

I read another article on this a month or so back, but basically this has caused a massive rift between the PD and DAs office. Interestingly enough they wanted to punish the guy who did the whistleblowing on the excluded evidence, but not only did his superior realize he couldn't do that, they realized the whistle-blower had a solid Internal Affairs case against the higher ups.
 
This is the case where the guy's car was surrounded by protestors and he saw one of them point an AK-47 at him, so he fired first? Self defence if it could not be any clearer. Guy can't retreat since he's in his car, surrounded by protestors, he can't put his foot down without running a lot of them over, and he shot at someone who pointed a gun at him, and after he fired, someone fired back at him.

I hope this is televised so we can see some potential meme trial stuff.
 
This is the case where the guy's car was surrounded by protestors and he saw one of them point an AK-47 at him, so he fired first? Self defence if it could not be any clearer. Guy can't retreat since he's in his car, surrounded by protestors, he can't put his foot down without running a lot of them over, and he shot at someone who pointed a gun at him, and after he fired, someone fired back at him.

I hope this is televised so we can see some potential meme trial stuff.
We've already got the lead investigator saying the DA is playing evidentiary games. Pre-trial discovery will be interesting in that case.
 
Foster was also a veteran IIRC. USAF.
He was in the air force for only a few months and was released when he was 19. I guess that makes him a veteran but he used the girlfriends illness as the excuse to get out and he expressed anti military sentiment. The media has drastically played up his service so there is contradicting information about Garrett Foster's military service.
 
Last edited:
This is the case where the guy's car was surrounded by protestors and he saw one of them point an AK-47 at him, so he fired first? Self defence if it could not be any clearer. Guy can't retreat since he's in his car, surrounded by protestors, he can't put his foot down without running a lot of them over, and he shot at someone who pointed a gun at him, and after he fired, someone fired back at him.

I hope this is televised so we can see some potential meme trial stuff.
It's also on video, iirc, so it's incontrovertible. The DA should take a ride on a helicopter.
 
It's also on video, iirc, so it's incontrovertible. The DA should take a ride on a helicopter.
The actual events are not on video to my knowledge, you cannot see the guy raise the AK or him being shot, there is a crowd in the way in both videos I've seen. Unfortunately its an absolute pain to get raw footage off youtube after such time.
 
We've already got the lead investigator saying the DA is playing evidentiary games. Pre-trial discovery will be interesting in that case.
I'm so confused. If the lead investigator has signed an affidavit accusing the prosecutor's office of witness tampering, then why isnt Garza getting arrested and questioned?
 
Yet they aren't doing shit about the gofundme page for the psycho who ran over that christmas parade

Funny thing that
That's because Darrell Brooks was a violent sex offender who took an underaged girl to Vegas to pimp her out. The only way the progressive crowd could love him any more is if he got shot by a white police officer while raping a toddler.
 
Last edited:
I'm so confused. If the lead investigator has signed an affidavit accusing the prosecutor's office of witness tampering, then why isnt Garza getting arrested and questioned?
I didn't say he was doing witness tampering. But he's intentionally excluding exculpatory evidence from the court, which is going to absolutely torpedo things once he's finally before a judge and not just a grand jury he can easily control.
 
Oh yeah, didn't he go aggro on the mobbed car because it was, at least in post-rationalization, supposedly a direct threat to running over his wheelchair girlfriend or some such?
Iirc that's the case, but I cant be sure. I fell off when they were still deciding whether or not the tard shot first, so I'm not up on the new lore.
 
I didn't say he was doing witness tampering. But he's intentionally excluding exculpatory evidence from the court, which is going to absolutely torpedo things once he's finally before a judge and not just a grand jury he can easily control.
The article says witness tampering
 
Back