Talk:Murder of Garrett Foster

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)

Foster was killed regardless of what happened afterwards in the trial. Using the term "murder" when there is no consensus on the matter just shows Wikipedia's bias. "Killing" is a more neutral term, because WAS killed, everyone agrees on that one, so there is nothing wrong with using that term instead. Saying "Murder" implies intent, and nobody on that jury can get inside Perry's head and know for sure what he intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:985:800:8320:dcd2:f985:6986:684c (talk) 21:00, May 16, 2024 (UTC)
 * Perry was found guilty of murder, ergo "murdered" is the right term to use. Bondegezou (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Foster identity
Why not identify Foster as a USAF veteran in the first sentence, rather than just saying "man"? This kind of identifier is frequently accorded to bios of veterans of the armed services in less controversial cases. Facility with weapons, in private or in public, is obviously a part of being a veteran, and the crux of the case is that one serving soldier (Perry) saw a veteran (Foster) and assumed that the latter was not a lawful open-carrier with a background in safe weapons use, but instead a violent threat simply because he had a legally owned and displayed weapon on his person. Calling Foster simply a "man" implies that Perry was the only one acting with a highly trained awareness of threat, whereas clearly Foster was doing the same based on his own training in terms of Perry driving into a crowd. NicoloSambuca (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

As of 5/16/2024 Daniel Perry has been pardoned by Gov. Greg Abbot. This needs to be edited and updated.
update in verdict Jmurphy042000 (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * A pardon is a political act, not an “update in verdict.” Mr. Perry was set free; he was not exonerated. Greg Boyle (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * so you don't think the article should be updated to correspond to his current situation? Wouldn't that then be incorrect information no matter the definition of "verdict"? The point is to reflect the proper and up to date information in the correct manner. It shouldn't matter if it is a "verdict" or a "pardon". In either case he is no longer incarcerated and the article should reflect as much. Jmurphy042000 (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The article does reflect the fact that he is no longer incarcerated. He was freed without serving his full sentence, and he had certain civil rights restored.  He is still a convicted murderer. Greg Boyle (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. The verdict and conviction no longer exists. Trentc (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Murder remains the proper term
A pardon is an act of grace by the individual granting it. It does not remove the underlying conviction. It merely relieves the recipient of the burden of the criminal attainder. In this case, it relieves Perry of all the terms of his sentence and restores his civil rights. As the Supreme Court previously stated "in dicta" granting of a pardon is an acknowledgement that the recipient is guilty and receipt of a pardon is likewise a confession by the recipient of his guilt. The term murder should be retained in all instances in which it occurs. Perry is still convicted of murder, just relieved of the criminal attainder for murder. Safiel (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * You're misinterpreting Burdick v. United States, or at least interpreting in a draconian way that is not recognized today in modern jurisprudence, and eliding the context of that decision being a petitioner who did not wish to accept a pardon. A pardon does not in itself imply guilt, but depending on context may leave the question of guilt hanging in the air where a not-guilty verdict may better resolves that question. Hurleybird (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there any precedent on Wikipedia of changing article titles or language within articles referring to a a crime - when the criminal was convicted by a jury of their peers - because the criminal was pardoned? Or is that only done in cases where a case was overturned as a wrongful conviction? Setting aside any debate about acceptance of guilt on Perry's part and Lorance v Commandant; is there precedent on Wikipedia of treating a pardon as overturning the decision of the jury, or is it treated as an exoneration? As far as I am aware, the conviction stands in cases of pardons. So, I ask: Is there precedent for such a change on Wikipedia, or is the demand that it be changed just coming from bad faith editors who are particularly interested in this particular convicted murderer due to the racial aspect of the murder? Crushable160 (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any such precedent, and it’s worth noting that bad faith editors were demanding that this not be called a murder long before the governor pardoned the murderer. Greg Boyle (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is still murder. Homicide of any kind is murder. Yes he is pardoned. Pardoned is not a verdict or exoneration. It means he was forgiven my the government and set free. Some civil liberties will be restored such as the right to vote, but a conviction will still remain on his record. However, he is now able to apply for a record expungment. In this situation what should be done? Once, and if, it is expunged anyway? The article should also be updated to reflect his current status. Jmurphy042000 (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * by* Jmurphy042000 (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry,but you are incorrect "A pardon is grounds for an expungement order. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 55.01(a)(1)B)(i). According to state pardon board, “A person receiving a full pardon after a conviction is entitled to an expunction of all arrest records relating to the conviction. This requires the applicant to request an expunction from the appropriate state court.” See Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, Effects of a full pardon, supra. After expungement, an individual may deny the fact of conviction, except that the individual must admit that he has a conviction that was expunged if questioned under oath at a criminal proceeding.  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 55.03(3).   Full pardon does not relieve obligation to register as sex offender.  Only a “special pardon” (a full pardon on the grounds of innocence) declares a person innocent of the crime and provides for complete freedom from legal implications of the conviction

Mention that Garret Foster was white?
Given the correlation with a Black Lives Matter protest, perhaps it matters to explicitly mention that Garret Foster had white skin. Ybllaw (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If that is what reliable sources do, then we should do the same, agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure if there is any policy about the amount of sources, but the addition of a new source wasn't required, as already present sources mentioned it as well..
 * "Perry and Foster are White.", https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/10/us/daniel-perry-texas-sentencing-wednesday Ybllaw (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Broken link
"Governor Abbott Pardons Daniel Perry Following Board Recommendation". gov.texas.gov. Retrieved 2024-05-16. has an extra - at the end of the link.

Should be https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-pardons-daniel-perry-following-board-recommendation
 * Fixed. Bondegezou (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 17 May 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. As pointed out in the discussion, a pardon does not erase the underlying conviction. If the conviction was overturned or quashed by later judicial process, then the WP:DEATHS flowchart would indicate a different title, but not before. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Murder of Garrett Foster → Killing of Garrett Foster – With Perry's pardon now official, it is best for the page to be moved to a different title. Per the pardon proclamation by Governor Abbott, it appears as though Perry is being pardoned because there is a belief he is not guilty of breaking the law. I disagree with assertions that this is merely a display of grace. It is true that grace is sometimes the reason for the issuance of a pardon, but it does not appear to be the case here. Keeping it as "Murder of Garrett Foster" is POV.  Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 22:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A pardon doesn't erase the underlying conviction. Jessintime (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A jury was shown all the evidence and unanimously found him guilty.  No court identified a defect with his trial.  His conviction was nullified by a political act, not a judicial finding.It is very much worth noting that the state of Texas has a procedure for issuing pardons based on actual innocence, and that procedure was inarguably not followed here.  This pardon was issued under the “the governor has requested permission to issue a pardon” procedure.Abbott did not attend the trial and had no access to the trial record before he announced his intent to issue the pardon.  He simply looked at the fact that the victim was a BLM protester and said “that doesn’t seem right to me.”The fact that the governor and a board of his political appointees agreed to free a murderer does not change the fact that this was fairly adjudicated as a murder by a unanimous jury and that the jury’s verdict was not overturned by an appellate court. Greg Boyle (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per . - Amigao (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jessintime. Murder is murder, political pardons notwithstanding. And, as an aside to Greg's statement that A jury was shown all the evidence, I believe they weren't shown all the evidence, as a whole bunch of Perry's racist posts and comments were held back until after the trial. Although, yes, the jury found him guilty anyway. The OP's argument that it appears as though Perry is being pardoned because there is a belief he is not guilty of breaking the law, implies that it's more than just Gov. Abbott who holds this belief; I'm not persuaded, however. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 12:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not our duty to pursuade you or any of us. It is to reflect the proper information WITHOUT BIAS. inserting your beliefs is not the correct way. That is not what shoukd be done.
 * In addition, if you read the pardon, what you said is incorrect. The pardon is based off of information found by a independent investigation (board of parole) that information may have been suppressed by Garza. If that is truly and ultimately the case, the trial would not have been fair. This is called a Brady violation. If he had the opportunity and time to appeal this could have come to light and properly overturned the verdict. Jmurphy042000 (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * JMurphy, you seem to have misunderstood a few points. First, I'm not convinced that it's more than just Gov. Abbott who holds this belief [that Perry's innocent]. The OP's argument suggests otherwise, but I'm not convinced. I'm not saying anything about my conviction (har!) about his guilt or innocence, but about the OP's claim that there's some widespread "belief he is not guilty of breaking the law".Secondly, it's only a Brady violation when exculpatory information is withheld from the defense. That's not what I'm talking about. In the actual case, the defendant had made numerous racist and aggressive comments about his intent to "kill a few people". These hardly need to have been shared with the defense, and they're a far cry from exculpatory. Indeed, I believe they would have got him convicted faster and "harder". In any case, I mention them (among other reasons) to underscore the appropriateness of the term "murder", beyond the lack of any reversal. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 10:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose He was released because of the pardon but it doesn't undo his conviction. Johndavies837 (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per my earlier thread, a pardon does not erase the underlying conviction or the crime itself. It is merely an act of grace that relieves the defendant of any criminal penalties. The juries factual finding of guilty still stands. Safiel (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you are not understanding what he is asking. He is asking to clarify the title, not rewrite the wording or definition of the crime itself. If in the eyes of the law it is not considered murder, isn't it our duty as editors to reflect the proper information as covered WITHOUT BIAS OF ANY KIND. yes, I agree, taking a life is murder. No dispute there. However, there is now question as to what it is considered legally, that is what it should reflect. Not the moral side. That is not our duty, to impose morals or biases. It is to convey proper and unbiased information to all. So therefore, if the law says it was justified self defense (as per the pardon/statement by Greg abbot) should we also not reflect that?
 * Or an alternative.
 * Add a specific section detailing the pardon itself and what that means.
 * We can not, and should not include personal biases, emotions, or feelings into editing. That's not our purpose. Jmurphy042000 (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What happens if he is granted an expungment? He would no longer have a record. Then what? Just because he was convicted doesn't mean the article shouldn't be properly edited or clarified. That is purposely with holding proper information. It still needs to be conveyed in some manner. Otherwise it says hes a convicted murder who is no longer in jail.
 * example: Why? Why is he no longer in jail? What happened? How did it happen? Who approved it. Why was it approved. What happens in the case of expungment?
 * There are multiple factors at play here, not just hanging on the definition of a jury verdict.
 * If you're not aware part of the basis for the pardon itself was due to supposedly suppressed information that could have justified self defense. If that is truly the case, there may ne more to come. Just because a jury renders a verdict does not mean it is the correct verdict.
 * Example: Orenthal James Simpson verdict.
 * I am also not here to debat politics or if what he did was wrong or justified. We shouldn't be focused on that. At all.
 * The point is to convey accurate information no matter beliefs or political affiliations of any kind. I see that interjecting a lot. Jmurphy042000 (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for now at least. According to the TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES website, a pardon does not automatically remove offenses from a person's criminal record. To get those records removed, a person has to get a separate expunction. A person who has been pardoned is entitled to such an expunction, but it is not an automatic process. As far as I can tell, Perry has not applied for or received such an expunction. If Perry does get an expunction at some point, then there would be a basis for changing the title of the page. GranCavallo (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A jury unanimously found him guilty of murder. A pardon is forgiveness for a crime, not a retrial acquittal. TheXuitts (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, despite the verdict, it remains a matter of dispute whether it was a murder or not, that's why he was freed. "Killing" avoids taking a stance on that and maintains NPOV.  Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. Naming conventions (violence and deaths) says that with a conviction the title shall be "Murder of". A pardon is legal forgiveness for a crime, not the overturning of a conviction. TheXuitts (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: he was convicted of murder, ergo it was a murder. That’s what reliable sources say. Bondegezou (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose – this is not a reversal or overturning. This is a Texas state pardon, and according to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles here, a pardon ...restores certain citizenship rights forfeited by law as the result of a criminal conviction, such as the right to serve on a jury, the right to hold public office, and the right to serve as executor or administrator of an estate. It also states that it is not the same as an expunction which completely seals the record of the convicted person as if it never happened and in this case there is not an expunction. Garrett Foster was still murdered according to a jury and a pardon does not reverse a conviction. cookie monster   755  22:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose – As others with more knowledge of law have noted at length, a pardon does not affect the fact of the conviction, it simply means he does not have to go to prison or forfeit certain rights.--Tulzscha (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seems biased
It’s obvious. Change it 2600:6C54:4200:19D2:E998:21DE:E331:5D83 (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this article is written horribly from one pov. No mention of the victim being white. The prosecution claim the was driving into the crowd is written as if it's not contested, etc. This is why people don't trust Wikipedia. 2603:8080:7400:E6C:EC0C:6D21:1C98:D7F8 (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Cry harder ku klux karen 2601:143:C500:1B10:40EC:F707:E122:CE08 (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Is that what we are resorting to? Calling names? Just because someone wants the facts to be conveyed doesn't and shouldn't imply racism.
 * What did that comment get you? What was the point of that? We are supposed to remove that type of stuff from this. If you can't... you may be in the wrong place.
 * Please refrain from any ignorance of any kind. That included.
 * That can be misconstrued and misinterpreted on your part as well. Jmurphy042000 (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They were wrong in namecalling, but your argument that "someone wants the facts to be conveyed" is not correct. Nor did your comment add anything to the conversation. There is no contest, not even from the defendant, that Perry didn't drive into the crowd. Perry and his lawyers can argue intent saying it was accidental, but the end result is the same; Perry drove into the crowd putting himself into the situation and where he eventually shot and killed Foster. Those are the facts of the matter. Those are the facts of the case. Multiple eyewitnesses account for it and the defendant didn't oppose those facts. The opposition only addressed whether there was intent. A argument not bought by the jury given the evidence leading to a unanimous verdict.
 * Addressing the prior argument about bias being demonstrated by "the victim being white" not being mentioned. That really doesn't matter. Them being there for a BLM activity describes the scene accurately in this context as it wasn't tried as a hate-crime or a racially-motivated murder, just a murder and aggravated assault. Skin color isn't necessary and adds nothing of value regarding this case. 2603:6010:1607:DC00:34C1:77DD:3A1C:FE37 (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * so you just plain out want to insert your views without regard? If I didn't add anything why are you agreeing with the name calling? You are focusing on everything else here. I'm talking specifically about the outcome. You're trying to debate facts of the case (which is actually inserting opinion because you weren't there, correct?)
 * We are here to be unbiased. I'm sorry you can't remove yourself from that and correct the article when something has changed. That is the overall point here. Whether the jury found him guilty or not is NOT the point. THE POINT IS TO REFLECT HIS CURRENT STATUS. THAT LITERALLY TAKES 2 SENTENCES. you act like that is going to overtrn or change the whole sum of the article. Every single fact should be incorporated. Period. Am I wrong? Is this not supposed to be a source of information!? So if you're deliberately leaving something out due to your own opinion, what is that called? Biased. Plain and simple. It does not in anyway matter if it was for or against the defendant. I do not care his race, religion, creed, sexuality, political affiliates or whatever it may be. Simply reflect and convey the proper information. That's it. Idk why you seem so hard set on your high horse and your morals, politics, or whatever you're attempting to stand on. THAT IS NOT YOUR OR OUR JOB HERE. it is to properly convey information. I think we personally need to have a actual member of Wikipedia step in here. Due to the obvious issues between everyone. Especially if a moderator can not remove one's own feelings from the situation. That's not OK. Jmurphy042000 (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Who is contesting that he drove into the crowd? Perry didn’t contest that during the trial. In fact he said he did it accidentally because he was distracted by someone he was communicating with on his phone. 72.69.208.186 (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The article currently states, "Perry originally stopped and honked his car horn at the protesters, but later ran a red light and drove his car into the crowd." Perry was turning right from 4th Street (heading east) onto Congress Avenue (heading south). If he stopped and then proceeded to turn right, he did not run a red light because making a right turn on red after stopping is legal in Texas. Videographers had been traveling with the marchers eastbound on 2nd Street as they turned north on Congress Avenue, taking up both sides of the broad two-way street just a few minutes prior to the shooting. The leading marchers were relatively thin as Perry approached the intersection, but as Perry turned right, he headed into a thicker aggregation of people walking against traffic, who clearly interpreted his action as aggressive. The tragic event unfolded from there. Congress Avenue was not closed by the police as you can see marchers passing by a car that was northbound on Congress. Saying that Perry "ran a red light" is an inaccurate judgment, so I agree that there is an NPOV problem with the article as it currently stands. A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * You can still run a red light if you don't stop at it or refuse to yield for pedestrians or vehicles and, as a result of your turn, cause an accident or near-miss. It sounds like given all the evidence of the case demonstrated, and the proximity of Foster from the intersection, that the way was not clear. It would be a failure to yield, or otherwise colloquially noted as "running" a red light. But neither side argues he didn't turn into the crowd, nor the location of the killing therefore technically, he doesn't argue he didn't run a red light. He just argues he did it unknowingly because he claims he was looking at his phone because he was working for Uber, engaging in a charge largely known as distracted driving that I am unsure exists in Texas as a whole (texting while driving is clearly-noted on multiple sources, but the general use of electronics isn't) but does explicitly exist in Austin since 2015 via ORDINANCE NO. 20140828-041.
 * You are arguing against a non-contested issue and saying it implies bias. Though, I will grant you the sentence should be changed for a different reason. The source noted for that sentence doesn't note Perry "stopping and honking" at the demonstration at this time. So, Perry only ran a red light, or legally, failed to yield. 2603:6010:1607:DC00:34C1:77DD:3A1C:FE37 (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Why are we debating the definition of murder and including our own personal beliefs?
that is not our job. That is not our purpose.

"The goal of a Wikipedia article is to create a comprehensive and neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge about a topic. Editors are encouraged to be bold in editing in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, just-the-facts style."

Please remember why Wikipedia exists and what our job is. Jmurphy042000 (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Calling it a murder is in keeping with that goal. Greg Boyle (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why should i remove that? We seem to be forgetting our job. Am i now being told i cannot express my own opinion, as is my right, since we want to argue morals? Jmurphy042000 (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Murder or the definition of murder is not the debate. That is not "the goal" if that is your goal that's inserting opinion. The goal is to be a open and accurate resource and depository of information for all to access. The point is people use this to get information on the scale of millions. Yes a jury found him guilty. No argument there. However, the neglect or unwanted to add the caveat that he was then pardoned due to one's personal beliefs is not OK. That is not the point or "goal". The point is to make sure all the information and facts are conveyed. Period. End of story. Anything else, or inserting your beliefs is the wrong thing to do. That is my point.
 * If i am wrong then show me where it says in our guidelines and rules that says we are to insert our opinion? This is nto the opinion section of the NYT this is Wikipedia.
 * I dont get what the issue is. You're actually acting like if we included a few sentences that explains the pardon, that it will overturn his entire trial or overshadow the trial. No. He is still a convicted killer. Thats not up for debate.
 * My pure hang up is why. Why do you refuse to report all the facts as they are? Honestly? Why. Other than the pure fact he was pardoned and thats reality, what is the issue?
 * Unless you have some undeniable fact that says he was not pardoned, you are deliberately withholding information. Jmurphy042000 (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The article describes his pardon in some detail and in multiple places, so I am unclear what point you are making. Bondegezou (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

A refresher on how we should be editing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Jmurphy042000 (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2024
Thge text as it stands suggest that Gov Abbott's pardon came after an independent decision by the board, but the governor had ordered the board to expedite the process and asked them to recommend a pardon. I suggest addition of this sentence to the end of the last paragraph of the intro section: The Governor had requested a pardon recommendation from the Board, and he had ordered them to expedite the process. ref: https://www.kxan.com/news/abbott-calls-for-pardon-of-daniel-perry-after-guilty-murder-verdict/ https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/pardon-under-review-for-man-convicted-of-killing-protester-in-downtown-austin/ 50.106.189.31 (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Safiel (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)