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.
 
It was to prove that they can break the law without consequences, you know by doing stuff like pointing guns at people without repercussion. As it turns out...
Ironically he did mostly what the prosecution and the media accused Rittenhouse of doing; took a long gun to a protest looking for trouble and pointed it at people, he's only missing the CROSSED STATE LINES!. Except he got promptly ventilated when he pointed it at the wrong person.
 
The original competition to the AK-47 was the M14 apparently.

I do believe it's unfair to compare it to the AR or M16 platform lol since the M14 carried a serious punch with the 308 Winchester but didn't have automatic fire.

The competition for the M16 would be the AKM or AK-74.
There aren't even all that many AK-47's in existence. The Soviets couldn't get their stamped receivers spot-welded together properly until the AKM was in production, so they were stuck using the AK-49 until then which used milled parts, and was quite heavy and expensive to make as a result. Meanwhile there was no end of M2 carbines to fill the gap between the M14 and the M3 grease gun, but the Russians were stuck using the SKS as an intermediate weapon between the Mosin and the PPSh until then. And 10 rounds of semi-automatic 7.62x39 fed by a stripper clip is not going to match up with a 30 round box mag and full auto of .30 Carbine for firepower.
 
Last edited:
The retard could have been using a Century Arms AK style rifle for all we know or the rimfire version that mimics the aesthetics of an AK.

I doubt the wigger had the funds to afford the tax stamp for an actual legit AK-47 or the Type 56.

I believe Kalashnikov's US subsidiary or split off sells a pretty good looking AK-103 thought its all grey and Palmetto has their RAK-47 and others have their own, but I guess they are inferior compared to whatever comes out of the factories in Russia.
It was a PSA ak. There was pictures of mocking it in the gun threads.

1638740483238.png
 
It was a PSA ak. There was pictures of mocking it in the gun threads.

View attachment 2776890
Jesus that looks like shit compared to what these lot sell.


KR103-right-scaled.jpg


Ironically he did mostly what the prosecution and the media accused Rittenhouse of doing; took a long gun to a protest looking for trouble and pointed it at people, he's only missing the CROSSED STATE LINES!. Except he got promptly ventilated when he pointed it at the wrong person.
I look forward to MSNBC and Stephen Colbert defending open carry on the streets of America.
 
The AK is still quite accurate for an assault rifle and has a decent range.
I didn't mean to sound like I'm shitting on the AK, they are a perfectly reasonable rifle that I wouldn't turn down out of hand. The designers for the AK pattern did make a choice, though, when faced with the good/fast/cheap-esque dynamic of gun design. That choice was to tilt towards ease of use and manufacture, and that comes with certain tradeoffs like less precision and weight. Its still minute-of-infantryman accurate at the usual combat ranges, but it'll lose against other rifles at a marksmanship trial.
 
Update:

Trial starts this week. Another article said it would not be streamed for "fears of witness tampering".
All trials should be streamed publicly. This is just the state being afraid of becoming a laughingstock again.
 
All trials should be streamed publicly. This is just the state being afraid of becoming a laughingstock again.
Have they ever not been, though? This is an attempt to get us to stop laughing. Also, keep in mind IIRC we did have that news crew chasing down that juror bus in Kenosha, and Antifa is very much a thing...
 
Have they ever not been, though? This is an attempt to get us to stop laughing. Also, keep in mind IIRC we did have that news crew chasing down that juror bus in Kenosha, and Antifa is very much a thing...
Chasing down the juror bus is very different than the normal type of live courtroom video where they normally don't show the jury. People who do that ought to be arrested for obstruction of justice.
 
Have they ever not been, though? This is an attempt to get us to stop laughing. Also, keep in mind IIRC we did have that news crew chasing down that juror bus in Kenosha, and Antifa is very much a thing...
True. But Antifa will be trying to do this whether it's televised or not.

My biggest concern is remembering the way the media tried to push what was happening in the Rittenhouse trial in contrast to the facts that people could watch themselves.
 
Chasing down the juror bus is very different than the normal type of live courtroom video where they normally don't show the jury. People who do that ought to be arrested for obstruction of justice.
Yeah, and if you think Antifa wouldn't chase down and threaten any witnesses of any sort, expert or otherwise?
True. But Antifa will be trying to do this whether it's televised or not.

My biggest concern is remembering the way the media tried to push what was happening in the Rittenhouse trial in contrast to the facts that people could watch themselves.
Fair. While I do think there's some of that this trial is definitely going to be heated, and being televised would definitely throw fire on the flames that are going to be surrounding it. Antifa is going to want their pound of flesh from this guy after Rittenhouse was able to get away with it, and they'll do whatever necessary to get it. Its not entirely without actual justification, is what I'm getting at.
 
Yeah, and if you think Antifa wouldn't chase down and threaten any witnesses of any sort, expert or otherwise?

Fair. While I do think there's some of that this trial is definitely going to be heated, and being televised would definitely throw fire on the flames that are going to be surrounding it. Antifa is going to want their pound of flesh from this guy after Rittenhouse was able to get away with it, and they'll do whatever necessary to get it. Its not entirely without actual justification, is what I'm getting at.
It might not entirely be without justification, but then the solution isn't to kowtow to the demands of the black bloc (that is how we got here) but to stand up to them. To disperse them from around the courthouse, and to use the full extent of the law to protect those involved in the trial.
 
It might not entirely be without justification, but then the solution isn't to kowtow to the demands of the black bloc (that is how we got here) but to stand up to them. To disperse them from around the courthouse, and to use the full extent of the law to protect those involved in the trial.
Good luck with that. I mean, that's probably going to happen anyways on account of Antifa not being able to resist a good chimpout, so we'll see if that decision is revised.
Update:

Trial starts this week. Another article said it would not be streamed for "fears of witness tampering".
Did the other article say who had asked for it not to be streamed? Because that would change things a bit if the defense asked for the lack of coverage.
 
The retard could have been using a Century Arms AK style rifle for all we know or the rimfire version that mimics the aesthetics of an AK.

I doubt the wigger had the funds to afford the tax stamp for an actual legit AK-47 or the Type 56.

I believe Kalashnikov's US subsidiary or split off sells a pretty good looking AK-103 thought its all grey and Palmetto has their RAK-47 and others have their own, but I guess they are inferior compared to whatever comes out of the factories in Russia.
Let's be real. It was probably a Draco.
It was a PSA ak. There was pictures of mocking it in the gun threads.
I stand corrected.
 
I don't know if being streamed would benefit Perry post aquital.

The guy who was shot is a lot more sympathetic than the violent midget arsonist ex-con serial child rapist Kyle ventilated.
If Foster actually took aim then Perry was more than justified, but killing a socially conscious left lolitarian who took care of his disabled fiancee for years would get him demonised by many.
 
Good luck with that. I mean, that's probably going to happen anyways on account of Antifa not being able to resist a good chimpout, so we'll see if that decision is revised.

Did the other article say who had asked for it not to be streamed? Because that would change things a bit if the defense asked for the lack of coverage.
I think it was a decision by the judge/court.
 
Back