Video Series: The Daniel Perry Case Pt. 1

Don West, Steve Moses, and Shawn Vincent summarize the key facts that set the stage for the murder trial of Daniel Perry for the 2020 shooting of Garrett Foster.

 

 Shawn Vincent:

Hey everybody. Thanks for joining us. Today we’ll be talking about the case of Daniel Perry for the shooting of Garrett Foster. This case took place back in July of 2020. This was in the wake of the killing of George Floyd. There were protests across the country. Sergeant Daniel Perry, was driving rideshare to make extra money. He drove into a crowd of protesters. He got into a confrontation with Garrett Foster. Garrett Foster was armed with a rifle. He was wearing tactical gear. Daniel Perry shot Garrett Foster. He wasn’t arrested for more than a year. When he was, he was charged by a grand jury with murder. That trial took place in April of 2023, almost three years later. Perry was convicted of murder in that trial. It was controversial. There was a 17-hour jury deliberation. The governor of Texas, shortly after the verdict, proclaimed that he wanted to pardon Perry if his parole board would bring him the case.

I sat down a couple of months ago, a month or two after this verdict came in, with Don West. He’s National trial counsel for CCW Safe. And our own Steve Moses, he’s a well-regarded firearms instructor and a CCW Safe contributor. We talk about this case and the controversy in this video podcast series. We’ve got eight segments for you. Our first segment is about the facts of the case. We’ll talk about a lot of the controversy, a lot of the details, a lot of the ins and outs of the trial in the sections that come afterwards. But let’s get right into it. Here’s my conversation with Don West and Steve Moses on the Daniel Perry murder trial.

Shawn Vincent:

In 2020, the three of us got together and we talked about a case out of Austin, Texas where a Sergeant Daniel Perry was driving for a rideshare company to make extra money off-duty. And he drove somehow into a small crowd of Black Lives Matter demonstrators, who had been marching a couple of times a week in the wake of the killing of George Floyd. This is, gosh, three years ago now, right? And the case made headlines. Garrett Foster was the man who was shot. He is a former Air Force mechanic, and he was part of the protest. He was dressed in some fatigues and combat-like gear. According to the press reports, he was legally open carrying an AK-47 rifle. Daniel Perry, according to the testimony at the trial that just concluded last month, had driven through a red light. Driven towards where the protesters were.

He claimed that he didn’t see them. He claimed that he was texting and didn’t know that the protestors were there until the last minute. That was apparently discredited in court. They were trying to say that he intentionally drove to the protesters. As there’s some dispute in testimony about how aggressively he drove into this crowd of 20 or more demonstrators. They swarmed around the car, I think would be an adequate way to say it. They were banging on it. There was some kicking on it. Garrett Foster approached. He’s an imposing figure, I imagine, dressed the way he was with the rifle. According to the accounts that I’ve been able to find, it seems like, as he approached, Daniel Perry rolled down his window and then he fired five shots from his .357 revolver, fatally, injuring, wounding Garrett Foster. He died. The crowd scatters. Daniel Perry ends up driving away.

This gets lost in all the new stuff. I remember at the time we read that someone fired maybe a round after him as he drove away. He was taken into custody. He gave testimony to law enforcement officers. A detective, with the last name Fugitt heard his testimony, and decided not to charge him. It was controversial. It was a year later when a newly elected district attorney, who ran, in part, on a promise that he would take Daniel Perry’s case to a grand jury if elected. He did. That grand jury decided to charge him. And then in April this year, they went to trial and he was convicted for murder. Right, Don?

Don West:

Yes, that’s right.

Shawn Vincent:

From all those details, is there anything you want to add to that, or amend?

Don West:

No, not of the significant facts that may have contributed to the verdict that we’re going to talk about today. Mr. Foster, as you mentioned, had some military background, and he was dressed in sort of tactical gear. He was also quite a sympathetic figure, in that he was the caretaker for his girlfriend. Who suffered… And I don’t know why, but she suffered from some amputations. I think she had…

Shawn Vincent:

A quadruple amputee, yeah.

Don West:

That’s right.

Shawn Vincent:

And they had been together for 11 years. They said that he left the Air Force to be a caretaker for her.

Don West:

And he’d been at other marches, as you said, without incident that I’m aware of. Although he had been vocal, I think in the past, as to why he was open carrying the long gun. But no, factually, I think that you’ve covered the high spots there. Of course, there’s more to the story, as there always is.

Shawn Vincent:

Oh, yeah. More to the story. Steve, are there any details at this point in our conversation that stood out, that you’d want to add? Because we’re going to get into social media testimony and things he said on video to the investigators. But as far as the details and the timeline there, is that your understanding of it? Or did you read anything else?

Steve Moses:

Well, I really didn’t have too much else. As much as anything as I tried to get as good a picture of what may have actually happened, and indeed what he may have found himself facing. And why he chose to react the way he did, and the decisions that he made. I think as much as anything, and we’ve talked about this before, it’s not so much that I want to say, “Okay, I think this was a case where the man was wrongfully convicted. Or rightfully convicted.” It’s just, “Okay, where are lessons learned for concealed carriers?” And in some instances where people said that he was probably not at risk, I would maybe argue the opposite is true. That, had the victim done something slightly different, he very well could have been in a position to have harmed Mr. Perry, before Mr. Perry could have even responded to it.

Shawn Vincent:

Sure. And we’re going to talk more about that in a second. But part of this, we’ll acknowledge that there’s a lot of controversy over this case. And it’s become politically charged. And we’ll address some of that politics, but we’re not going to wade into it necessarily. Because to your point, Steve, we’re here to look for lessons for concealed carriers, not to advocate for any particular side in this case. Don, you know we’re advocates. When we have someone that we’re representing, we’re zealous advocates. But in this case, we’re trying to be objective, so that we can actually learn something. And our members can learn something from this experience. But when it comes to the politics, besides the prosecutor having run his campaign in part on a promise of putting this case to a grand jury. The governor of Texas, less than 24 hours after the verdict, said that he wanted his parole advisory board to advise a pardon for Perry. And that he’d sign it as soon as it hit his desk, essentially in an attempt to nullify the jury’s verdict in this case.

And that came before Perry was even sentenced. And one lawyer had some criticism about his decision to interject himself in a criminal case that was not yet concluded. And he said that the trial is not broadcast live. It was not recorded. Or it was recorded, but the recording is not accessible to the public. The trial transcript won’t be available for a few weeks. And clearly reading a news report, you can’t be as discerning and discriminating as a juror who saw all the witnesses, and who was exposed to all the evidence. And I mention that, not necessarily as a criticism of the governor, although we can talk about that. But more specifically in the reality that we are observers of this. We weren’t in the courtroom, and we didn’t have access to a live feed, which in some cases we’ve had.

And even in those cases, we weren’t able to see everything, or necessarily be privy to all the details that were presented to the jury. So we’re going to talk about this case with the facts that we know from what we were able to discern from the press reports that we researched. But also with the understanding that we weren’t the jury. And that nobody knows the case, I think more accurately and relevantly than a jury. I think you’d agree with that, Don.

Don West:

Yeah, without question. And especially from our perspective, we are limited to what we read in the news. And some of it is more agenda-driven than other media sources. But for the most part, everything I’ve found has been taking a clear point of view. I can’t say that I know that it was biased, but I know that there seems to have been a point of view as to why the article was written and the information that was chosen to be included. Which of course means there’s information that’s chosen not to be included. But I think we’ve pieced together a pretty fair overview of some of the important stuff anyway.

Shawn Vincent:

All right everybody, that’s it for this segment. Join us for our next segment. We’re going to have an in-depth discussion with Steve Moses about tactically whether Garrett Foster, armed with a rifle, dressed in tactical gear, posed a legitimate threat to Sergeant Daniel Perry. And whether Daniel Perry’s fears that he faced imminent threat of rape, bodily harm or death and any merit. Until then. Be smart, stay safe, take care.