Talk:Murder of Garrett Foster

Recommended grammar change

Remove 'and Foster himself' from the following sentence. How can 'Foster himself' be 'breaking down in tears' if he's dead?

On April 7, 2023, after a week of deliberations, the jury found Perry guilty of murder, but not guilty of aggravated assault, with friends and family of Foster, and Foster himself, breaking down in tears as the guilty verdict was read. 2404:440C:2A22:2000:F5C3:AB75:5737:D9EC (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Footage

Was there any footage related to this incident released, like with Charlottesville? LichCake (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Not good footage. Only footage to my knowledge shows the opposite of Perry’s car rather than the side where the death occurred. TheXuitts (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I've seen two video streams synced but can only make out the crowds retreating from a general direction in both of them. I've seen some stills which highlight cards and try to establish positions but none animated in real-time w/ the entire videos, sadly. LichCake (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Evidence

there's literally a picture of Foster aiming the gun at perry. 172.110.93.28 (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

That is not true. His gun is pointed almost straight down in the picture. Furthermore, Perry, in his own statement to the police said that he thought Foster was going to aim at him, not that Foster had aimed at him. Greg Boyle (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

whether he pointed the gun at him or not. Murder is murder, and thats that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prizmadubs (talk • contribs) 01:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems closer to a 45-degree angle to me, but we shouldn't trust our lying eyes and should wait until reporters interpret that photograph on our behalf. LichCake (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Whatever image you saw, if it even exists, is not of the incident. TheXuitts (talk) 06:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Even the title of this article makes the agenda obvious. Whoever was the main contributer to the article us probably a paid left wing shill. 5.14.151.95 (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

This article just states the facts. Get out of your bubble. TheXuitts (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Fact is he was convicted, IMO every "murder" article probably ought to be "murder conviction of X" for better neutrality, since that a conviction happened is more readily agreed upon. LichCake (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's premise of mediated "truth" has failed. One person's edits simply override the previous. Whomever stays the longest owns the "truth", it's ridiculous... 70.113.34.31 (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

recomendation to remove this article

this article accomplishes nothing other than act as a war field of accusations and misleading information and I would recommend a creation protection against further pages under this title Lergondo (talk) 06:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The murder was one of the most significant events of the 2020 protests. The trial was also pretty significant, and the attempt to pardon Perry is a huge political event. The vandals will get bored soon and move on to trying to figure out which beers are too gay for them to drink or some shit like that. I don’t want to give them a heckler’s veto by removing a page just because they don’t like the facts. Greg Boyle (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

except it was not a murder, it was self defense against a gang of violent individuals, one of which approached him with an assault rifle while his friends blocked him off.

He had only two options in that moment, drive off, running over the one in front or shoot at the clear threat.

If this is the precedence you wish to set then I worry about the day your house is broken into because by your logic your just supposed to sit back and let them do whatever they want to you and your family, quit protecting violent criminals, your only outing yourself as a criminal too. Lergondo (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

For a minute there, I thought this recommendation might have been made by a good faith editor, and I interjected because I was concerned that it might be heeded. Thank you for clarifying that that is not the case. Greg Boyle (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Article Bias

Daniel Perry did not drive "into" a crowd of protestors. He drove towards, with the intent to peaceably pass by, a violent mob that was illegally blocking the road. Daniel Perry is entitled to the right to self defense just like anyone else. A hostile mob pointed a rifle at him and he had no other choice. I am sick and tired of so-called encyclopedia entries like this that are so completely biased and you don't even give the courts and governor a chance to sort things out before you make this slanderous, inaccurate article full of loaded, biased language. I regret ever donating to this so-called encyclopedia site that has become a cess pit of propaganda pages like this. Please clean up the obvious bias in this article and do better. - an anonymous oldschool wikipedia donor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.79.140.252 (talk • contribs)

Your first point is simply a matter of how you're choosing to interpret the word "into". The rest is your irrelevant opinion, the courts already have "sorted things out", any decision the governor makes is also irrelevant to whether it was murder. --Pokelova (talk) 04:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Please "Drive towards" other US political and BLM related pages and I'm sure you'll find a wealth of pro-conservative bias

Folks like Perry have a method of misusing and misapplying stand your ground laws in order to get away with killing people they dislike, particilarly black people, after aggravating their would-be victim into reacting a certain way. Daniel Perry himself claimed he would kill people and then cry wolf on self defense. He failed to do this.

As for this article, RS explain both views pretty well. Whether or not he was actually "Defending himself" will be based on whoever is reading this, and their own biases, life experience, fears, etc. As your polar opposite, frankly, neither me nor you should be touching this article. MayDay2099 (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Hard to "aggravate a would be victim into reacting a certain way" when he drove into an area and several people with guns surrounded his car. I mean, there's several sources that talk about that part. Trying to feed that into the story is biased. 2604:CA00:13B:A9AE:0:0:A67:64F9 (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to include your perspective in the article or request an edit. I will be glad to insert it for you if I am able. Just make sure to use a source. MayDay2099 (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 August 2023

Add to the "Calls for pardon" section the fact that Daniel Perry's attorneys have filed a petition to pardon him to Governor Abbott. Source: and Truecrimefan22 (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done This has been pending for almost a month without action, so it's clear none of the people patrolling this queue are willing to implement it. You would likely get a faster response if you specified the exactl content you want added yourself. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Shooter Pardoned

Need to change the status from "murdered" to "killed" accordingly. 69.150.253.30 (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Without sources saying the conviction was reversed there's no need to change the wording. XeCyranium (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's your reason: that Wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased platform, and "murder" expresses a moral judgment.

But go ahead. Refuse. It will just confirm the growing perception that wikipedia is too leftist-biased to be objective. Nccsa186 (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)