Justice Fails Again Under Soros’ New World Law

The recent conviction of Daniel Perry for murder is a resounding defeat of the Second Amendment and our right to self-defense. Those of us who believe in justice are left wondering about what exactly happened, and whether justice was truly served.

Daniel Perry shot and killed an individual who was pointing an AK-47 at him from just 18 inches away, while another person fired shots at Perry's car, hitting it four times.

Despite initial reports suggesting that Perry acted in self-defense, he was ultimately convicted of murder, leaving us to question the fairness of the trial and the justice system. Upon closer examination of the available evidence and testimony, it becomes clear that Perry's actions were indeed justified under the principles of self-defense.

First and foremost, it is important to note that Perry was not the aggressor in this situation. He was driving for Uber for extra money when he accidentally made the turn into the Black Lives Matter protest. Then, he was confronted by individuals who appeared to be threatening him with deadly force. The fact that one of these individuals was allegedly pointing an AK-47 at Perry's face from just inches away is particularly significant, as it suggests that Perry's life was in imminent danger.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that Perry did not simply open fire indiscriminately. Rather, he appears to have acted in a measured and reasonable manner, firing his weapon only when he believed that his life was in danger. This is consistent with the principles of self-defense, which dictate that individuals are allowed to use lethal force to protect themselves from harm.

It is also worth noting that the lead investigator, in this case, did not initially charge Perry, citing his belief that Perry had acted in self-defense. This suggests that there was ample evidence available to support this conclusion and that the decision to ultimately charge Perry with murder may have been influenced by factors outside of the facts of the case. The conclusion to charge Perry a year after the incident was because progressive Soros-funded district attorney Jose Garza was elected and he dropped all charges against the rioters while charging Austin police officers and Daniel Perry with murder. Perry was a “lifer” in the US Army and had not been discharged from the Army but stayed in as a Sergeant after the incident. If the Army believed Perry was guilty, he would have been gone; however, the Army transferred Perry to Alaska to remove him from the death threats he was receiving at Fort Hood, Texas.

Ultimately, the conviction of Daniel Perry is a troubling development for anyone who believes in the right to self-defense. While it is important to ensure that individuals who commit violent crimes are held accountable for their actions, it is equally important to protect the rights of individuals who are simply trying to protect themselves from harm. Based on the available evidence and testimony, it seems clear that Perry's actions were indeed justified under the principles of self-defense, and that his conviction is a miscarriage of justice.

Those who believe the in the U.S. Constitution and our right to self-defense are asking Governor Abbott to pardon Daniel Perry for this miscarriage of justice and assault on our rights.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.

READ NEXT: Professor Suspended After Advocating To Silence Speech With Violence