That article states that no one saw the victim point a gun at Perry but then also has a quote from Perry's lawyer saying the evidence supported the defendant's claims of self-defence. What is this evidence of self-defence? I know Abbott is a wrongun but I find it hard to believe he would pardon someone for something like this based on feels. Are there any more details of what this evidence is ? is it new evidence that has come to light since the trial ? All the articles are annoyingly vague
Texas is one of the states that takes an expansive view of self-defense. In short, the statute states that if you reasonably believe someone is about to use force, you can blow them away.
Setting aside the problem of when that threshold has been crossed, it should be obvious that the wording of such legislation absolves the killer in, say, a rival gang war. "Well, Your Honor, the Crip saw me. He's a Crip, so he's armed. I'm a Blood, so I shot him before he could shoot me." Which begs the question of why the Blood didn't shoot first, but is easily refuted by the argument that until the Crip sees him, he is in no danger.
The defense attorney would like to apply such reasoning to any politically motivated killing, so long as the weapons and gang symbols are obvious enough. If you're marching against police brutality while holding a gun and the perp is wearing a Dixie flag, that will be enough for him to advance a self-defense claim.
I'm not aware of what you and I would call legitimate evidence of self-defense, which is why twelve Texas jurors voted to convict in the first place.
www.nbcnews.com
