Greg Abbott's Vile Pardon of a Veteran's Murderer
If TFN makes unbearable news bearable for you, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Thank you.
Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) yesterday issued a full pardon, including restoration of firearm rights, for the man convicted of murdering U.S. Air Force veteran Garrett Foster.
Foster was legally carrying a gun he owned legally when he legally approached the car that Daniel Perry had just driven into a crowd of protesters. So Perry shot him multiple times.
Abbott gave no reason for pardoning Perry. But he marshaled a perfect blend of “facts” that felt like a justification, simultaneously avoiding any concrete reason that could be picked apart for bullshit, but still tossing red meat to red faces under red caps.
Abbott’s proclamation cites the “exhaustive” review done by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles of Perry’s history and the shooting.
Crucially, Abbott cites Texas law that says anyone can use deadly force who “reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary” to prevent someone else from deadly forcing first. In other words, Perry did exactly what Foster would have been justified in doing if Foster had actually shot Perry instead of acting like a sane person and gesturing for Perry to roll down his window so they could talk.
Perry “feared losing his life,” Abbott says. “Reasonably” believing deadly force is needed to save your life — when it’s not actually needed, but you’re actually in fear — is known as cowardice. And/or a lie.
Abbott’s proclamation describes the behavior of Perry and the crowd in terms directly contradicted by the evidence and witnesses. Abbott says Perry’s car was “immediately surrounded by aggressive protesters.” Immediately after what? Why Perry’s car, specifically? Abbott doesn’t mention that Perry used his vehicle as a weapon, driving into the protesters.
The proclamation says Foster “brandished a Kalashnikov-style rifle in the low-ready firing position.” For the record, “brandished” is what you say when you want to make “carried” sound scarier. But it actually has a technical, linguistic definition, dictionary-style. In other words, words mean something.
“Brandish” means to move something, such as a weapon, in a menacing fashion. There’s zero evidence other than Perry’s own man-baby terrors to support Abbott’s claim that Foster did this.
And then there’s “low-ready firing position.” For the record, “low-ready firing position” is what you say when you want to make “not aiming at people” sound scarier. Unfortunately for Abbott, it’s also the diametric opposite of brandishing. You literally cannot brandish something and carry it in one position at the same time. Brandishing is moving. A position is not moving.
And it turns out “low-ready firing position” isn’t even a real thing, despite it sounding like a real thing. Guess how many hits you get searching that exact phrase? Thirty. On the entire internet. Which is full of man-babies trying to sound like military dudes.
And some of those 30 hits are news reports quoting Abbott. He. Made. It. Up.
The actual phrase is “low-ready position,” according to American (God help me for researching gun shit) Rifleman. But reality wasn’t good enough for Abbott.
So Abbott inserted the word “firing” into the phrase to machoer-ify it and to help boost Perry’s bullshit claim of a threat. And what exactly is this low-ready position, my fellow latte-sippers may be wondering?
Well, even Abbott’s shitty, lazy, fictional, testosterone-stimulating language shoots him in his own full ass. Low-ready position means your finger is off the trigger and you don’t even see a threat. Let’s hear from, Jesus save me, American Rifleman:
In other words, by Abbott’s own “look at me using gun words Mommy!” terminology, Perry had no reason to be a cowardly child — because the position of Foster’s rifle was one indicating Foster had not identified a threat. Which Perry should know because he’s literally in the army. And Abbott should know because he has a whole-ass staff to tell him things.
Also, with similarly Abbottian levels of stupidity, Abbott says that Foster “approached within 18 inches” of Perry’s car, with a “Kalashnikov-style” rifle. Kalashnikovs are more than 30” long. Meaning, Foster would have had to step back to have room to raise his rifle to shoot Perry.
Abbott also cites Detective David Fugitt’s claim that Travis County District Attorney José P. Garza “tampered” with his testimony, limiting what Fugitt could tell the grand jury. There are some buts here.
But #1: A judge already heard Fugitt’s claim that Garza illegally suppressed the evidence. And the judge said, in essence, fugitt.
But #2 is the old saying that prosecutors can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. So whatever Fugitt may have wanted to share with the grand jury likely wouldn’t have thwarted an indictment anyway. But also, that’s not the trial. Foster had plenty of opportunity to get anything exculpatory he wanted before the jury in his actual trial. Or appeal it if not.
So Abbott’s claim is bullshit to slap conspiratorial lipstick on his pig-headed politics.
(I’d also lurv to know how often Fugitt or other cops complain about prosecutors blocking exculpatory evidence when the accused isn’t a violent, racist, white extremist.)
With refreshing honesty, Abbott even cites Garza, the prosecutor, as prioritizing “reducing access to guns,” implying this is Garza’s motive for wrongfully prosecuting Perry. In the statement alongside his proclamation, Abbott says that Texas’s horrific, inhuman, anarchic “stand your ground” law “cannot be nullified by a jury or a progressive District Attorney.”
Here, too, Abbott’s logic fails: Foster also had a gun and got killed for it. Foster stood his ground non-lethally and got killed for it. It’s literally Foster’s legal gun that made his murder acceptable in Abbott’s eyes. Meaning Abbott just told Texas gun owners that they can be killed by any violent, racist, white extremist who’s “reasonably” afraid of them.
My man, I’m 17-hundred miles away and I’m reasonably afraid of them.
So Abbott just turned “Stand Your Ground” into a license to kill — and even if he doesn’t pardon other murderers, you can bet Abbott’s precedent will feature in many a murder defense.
So let’s look at just the visible part of the towering guilt iceberg that Perry is. And let’s consider just how aforethought his malice was. And let’s factor in just how motivated he was to attack a Black Lives Matter protest two months after the police murder of George Floyd. Here’s just some of what we know about Perry before, during, and after his murder of Foster:
Wrote, “to [sic] bad we can’t get paid for hunting Muslims in Europe.”
Wrote that Black Lives Matter was “a zoo full of monkeys that are freaking out flinging their shit.”
Used his computer to search for protest locations.
Wrote, “I might go to Dallas to shoot looters.”
Wrote, “I might have to kill a few people on my way to work they are rioting outside my apartment complex.”
Wrote about protesters, “send them to Texas. We will show them why we say don’t mess with Texas.” [It’s an environmental slogan, from back when Texas cared about the Texas environment.]
Asked a friend about shooting protesters legally.
Ran a red light before driving into the Black Lives Matter protest.
Nearly hit Foster’s fiancée, a Black quadruple amputee in a wheelchair.
After his pardon, rather than apologizing or making amends or pursuing rehabilitation or any of the things that are supposed to precede clemency, said through his attorney that he “wishes he never had to defend himself against Mr. Foster’s unlawful [sic] actions,” despite having mounted a legal defense that included brand-new claims of post-traumatic stress disorder.
In fact, Perry first told police not that Foster was aiming at him, but that “I didn’t want to give him a chance to aim at me” [emphasis added for guilt-recognition enhancement]. It was Foster who had the legal-in-Texas right to aim his rifle at Perry in order to stand his ground against Perry, the aggressor who had driven into the crowd and almost struck Foster’s fiancée.
Now, given Perry’s blatant, unrepentant guilt, here’s how nakedly Abbott flouted basic norms and obligations of clemency and even Abbott’s own practices:
Announced he wanted to pardon Perry less than a day after his conviction.
Announced he wanted to pardon Perry after Tucker Carlson said he should.
Announced he wanted to pardon Perry without any supporting application for a pardon.
Announced he wanted to pardon Perry without even one of three recommendation letters required from pardon applicants.
Announced he wanted to pardon Perry without Perry attesting in any way to his rehabilitation, as is required of pardon applicants.
Announced he wanted to pardon Perry without consulting with the surviving family of the victim.
Told the Pardons and Parole Board to expedite its review of the case…and how to decide…
…which has happened before only never not once ever.
Pardoned Perry without any indication of remorse by the murderer.
Pardoned Perry without him submitting an application detailing (p. 8) what he did to show he deserved it, including rehabilitative efforts.
In 2021, granted only eight non-death penalty pardons out of the 75 recommended by the board.
And here’s how unserious the process itself is in the Lone Shooter State:
Austin police didn’t arrest Perry after the shooting, Garza had to get an indictment.
The Pardons and Parole board is supposed to be representative of the entire Texas population, but the entire board is made up of people from law enforcement.
The governor can only pardon those recommended by the board — which he appoints and from which he can remove members at will.
The board has no rules or even guidelines about making recommendations or even the process for doing so — they don’t even have to meet, let alone deliberate.
Pardon applicants arguing innocence are supposed to (p. 17) get trial officials to submit evidence of innocence and the court itself to recommend clemency on those grounds.
In 2021, the board voted to pardon George Floyd posthumously of his minor drug conviction — after his arrest by a cop later charged with faking evidence to put people away for drug crimes.
Abbott didn’t act on the board’s recommendation of pardoning Floyd, and in 2022, the board “reconsidered” its recommendation and retracted it.
Unlike the federal process — similarly abused by Donald Trump — Texas appears not even to suggest that the pardon board consult with victims, other affected people, prosecutors, police, or judges.
Given Perry’s guilt, given Abbott’s flagrant violation of norms, and given how flimsy even the prescribed process is, here’s how much bullshittery was involved in dressing up this “review” as a serious inquiry. In an unsigned statement, the board said:
It was asked to “conduct an investigation” of the case,
It “delved into the intricacies” of the case,
It made “investigative efforts.”
But it also confirmed that its entire investigation cosisted of nothing more than “a meticulous review of pertinent documents.”
In other words, all they’re even claiming they did was to read what was already out there. Which, fine, likely the norm — but then don’t dress it up as a fucking investigation. All I did for this was read some shit and you don’t see me calling it an investigation, or even a meticulous review of pertinent documents, which sounds like how a college sophomore would try to make “I read some shit” sound fancy.
In fact, only in “exceptional circumstances” is the board supposed to recommend pardons before sentences have been served. As The Houston Chronicle editorialized, both the Floyd unpardon and yesterday’s bogus Perry pardon had the “stench” of politics. Smellable 17-hundred miles away.
Radley Balko has a good writeup of this whole moral obscenity, addressing the growing movement on the right to de facto legalize the murder of protesters. Protesters on the left, of course. Protest on the right, in the Capitol, then you’re the one who gets a pardon.
I’ll just add that Abbott is not merely incentivizing political violence. Hippie-punching alone won’t rise to a governor’s attention. Instead, he’s implicitly sending a signal that violence against his political opponents must be extreme enough to provoke the liberal outrage required to inspire a right-wing outcry from Tucker Carlson and the Legion of Tucker Carlson Wannabes.
The signal that Abbott and Carlson and their sycophants are sending is to be not tame in one’s awfulness, but as vile and horrific as possible. Only then will your case rise to the level of Republican attention required to secure Republican clemency.
What the media did here was mischaracterize this as the killing of a Black Lives Matter protester. Foster was also a military veteran who served his country honorably. That fact matters, too, and we should report it accordingly, because we should understand that Foster’s honorable military service has been obviated by the Republican Party for the sin of supporting Black civil rights and defending his Black fiancée.
As others have written before, about Texas specifically, honoring U.S. veterans is performative, the right’s equivalent of virtue signaling or church attendance. It matters when it’s useful to those using it as a cudgel or shield and doesn’t matter the moment it stands in the way of the right’s politics. Military pay. Benefits. Health care. Reproductive rights. Civil rights. Sexual violence. On and on, on issue after issue, “support the troops” means nothing the instant it conflicts with right wing ideology.
The Republican Party at its literal actual national convention in 2004 mocked the Purple Hearts received by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) during his service in the Vietnam War. Not secretly, on leaked audio — they collectively mocked him, on live television. The leader of today’s Republican Party, who avoided serving in the same conflict, dismissed the service of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) — including his years of captivity by North Vietnam that left him with limited movement of his arms.
Ask Democratic veterans of Iraq or Afghanistan how much support they’re getting.
The pardon of Perry — blatantly flouting even the minimal pardon norms of Texas, despite the obvious murderous intent and the death of a law-abiding military veteran who sought to de-escalate the situation non-violently — has gravely shaken my usual determination to reject evil as an explanation for human behavior. What Abbott has done is a vile, contemptible act in violent conflict with any sense of honor or decency, that exalts power for the sake of power above any other principle nominally held by the law-and-bullshit-fuck-you-order party.
The legacy of any American subscribing to this ethos is one of profound and lasting shame.
TCB
I.O.U. I know, I know, this isn’t a “real” edition of The Fucking News. And even though it’s a deep dive into a case that inspired in me an extreme level of revulsion and rage, I feel I still owe you at least one TFN Classic. So I’ll try to make that happen this weekend.
NICOLE SANDLER Don’t forget to catch me every Monday with the weekly “The Fucking News” segment on The Nicole Sandler Show, which you can watch/listen to live every Monday at 5pm, or on demand, here.
CROWDSOURCING / JOURNASPLOITATION Anyone got facial-recognition capabilities and the time/inclination to help me facially recognize someone for a story I’ve been working on? (I’ve tried some of the free options online and … am not good at it.) Please let me know!
THE FINE PRINT Missed me? You can always find me on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Bluesky, Mastodon, or Spoutible, where I post about original reporting and occasionally snark for the non-newsfucking masses. (LMK if you want me to follow back, as otherwise I mostly use social media to get my stories out there and hunt for overlooked news).
Go get ‘em, kids!
Yup, “The low, ready position” as taught by BOTH the NRA and the military
Great piece...loaded with details people need to know. Thank you.