August 15, 2007

Death Penalty For The Man Who Didn't Kill

Texas will execute Kenneth Foster on August 30th for the murder of a man whom prosecutors acknowledge was killed by someone else. Foster's crime? He agreed to participate in armed robberies and did with two incidents, but the murder occurred extemporaneously at another, unplanned place.

Is this execution fair? It's certainly legal:

Kenneth Foster Jr. is scheduled to be executed in Texas later this month for the murder of Michael LaHood, even though everybody -- even the prosecutors -- knows Foster did not kill the man.

Mauriceo Brown, who has admitted to shooting LaHood to death in August 1997, was executed last year, but barring an unlikely 11th-hour commutation from Gov. Rick Perry and the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole, Foster will meet the same fate on Aug. 30.

On the night of Aug. 14, 1997, Foster, Brown, DeWayne Dillard, and Julius Steen were drinking and smoking marijuana when they decided to use Dillard's gun to commit two armed robberies, according to Foster's attorney, Keith Hampton.

As they drove home, LaHood's girlfriend Mary Patrick appeared to flag their car down. According to testimony from Dillard and Steen, the car pulled over and Brown exited the vehicle. There had been no discussion that he would rob or kill LaHood, and he was effectively "acting out of an independent impulse," according to testimony.

After Brown shot LaHood, Foster, who was 19 at the time, became very anxious and started to leave the scene, but Dillard and Steen made him wait for Brown to get back in the car. They drove off, but were arrested shortly thereafter, Hampton said.

Texas has a legal concept known there as the "law of parties", a concept that every state uses to ensure that all members of a group that commit a crime share the guilt, not just the triggerman. It eliminates the finger-pointing that arises during trial, when defense attorneys start shifting blame to co-defendants in attempts to get their client off the hook. However, that usually does not apply to sentencing, especially when the triggerman admits to the murder.

Not everyone in this case got the death penalty. Only Foster and Brown did, and Brown has already been executed. The other two conspirators pled out and got lighter sentence, even though apparently they forced Foster to continue with the group. Normally,in cases such as this, the non-shooter would get sentenced to life rather than executed.

No one doubts that Foster should be in prison for a very long time. Participating in two armed robberies should have landed him there for decades. Moreover, since his group committed a murder, he bears responsibility for that crime as well. But should the punishment for the non-shooter be the same as for the shooter?

Let's take a look at another famous case of armed robbery and murder. Kathleen Soliah participated in an armed robbery as a member of the SLA, a notoriously violent group. In the course of the robbery, someone shot and killed a bank employee. Soliah went on the run, and didn't get caught until 23 years had passed. She got six years for her participation in the murder of Myrna Opsahl, a ridiculously short sentence but the longest possible under the plea deal she made.

This is what bothers me about the death penalty. Its application is inconsistent, and it has the potential for abuse, which this case arguably demonstrates. Even if I supported the death penalty -- which at one point I did -- applying it to a known non-shooter would seem a miscarriage. Texas Governor Rick Perry should think about breaking his streak of non-intervention in this case.

UPDATE: Before the comments get too far afield, I'm not arguing that Foster is not guilty of murder. Clearly he is, and would have been in any state, not just Texas. I'm arguing that the death penalty is excessive in a case where he was the getaway driver and not the shooter.

UPDATE II: On the other hand, in this case we have a shooter who gets out of jail after seven months:

After spending a total of seven months in custody, the Tennessee woman who fatally shot her preacher husband in the back was released on Tuesday, her lawyer told CNN.

Mary Winkler, a 33-year-old mother of three girls, was freed from a Tennessee mental health facility where she was treated for depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, lawyer Steve Farese said.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (36)

Posted by toad | August 15, 2007 8:01 AM

Yes the death penalty will be abused. The system will kill inocent men. However more will be saved than lost. Also if the "mob" losses faith in the government's ability to mete out the justice it demands it will start doling it out itself. If you want perfect justice you will die disapointed. But not dispensing imperfect justice is even worse. Putting people in cages for life times is a historicaly recent thing. While a man may be found innocent of murder and released after 20 years can those years be given back to him?

Posted by Jim T | August 15, 2007 8:08 AM

You should read a little closer. The section that you quoted only goes into what Hampton's lawyer says happened. The jury obviously disagreed, as did the appeals courts.

The actual circumstances, as related by Patrick, the victim's (eyewitness) girlfriend, paint a far different picture:

"Patrick testified: she and Michael LaHood, Jr. were returning in separate cars to his house; she arrived and noticed Foster's vehicle turn around and stop in front of Michael LaHood's house; Patrick approached Foster's vehicle to ascertain who was following her; she briefly spoke to the men in the vehicle, then walked away towards Michael LaHood, who had reached the house and exited his vehicle; she saw a man with a scarf across his face and a gun in his hand exit Foster's vehicle and approach her and Michael LaHood; Michael LaHood told her to go inside the house, and she ran towards the door, but tripped and fell; she looked back and saw the gunman pointing a gun at Michael LaHood's face, demanding his keys, money, and wallet; Michael LaHood responded that Patrick had the keys; and Patrick heard a loud bang."

I'm actually against the death penalty for pretty much the same reasons you do. I simply believe that juries do not arrive at the correct result enough to warrant it.

This case does not appear to fall into that category however.

Posted by Stormy70 | August 15, 2007 8:29 AM

I live in Texas, and the Governor can only commute or stay an execution if the Board of Pardons and Paroles recommends it. Perry really can't do it without permission.

You can not go wrong politically in Texas by executing criminals.

Democrats lost all their power in Texas because they were light on crime.

Posted by Juan Paxety | August 15, 2007 8:30 AM

I, too,have come to be generally opposed to the death penalty because it is too arbitrary. I was once appointed to help defend a murderer - two men were out on a burglary spree, stole TV sets, stereos and guns. At one home, the homeowner chased them with his own gun, and one of the two defendants, no one knows which, shot and killed the homeowner. Both fired in his general direction - no one knows which hit him. They were tried in two separate trials - one got the death penalty - the other got a life sentence. The appellate courts eventually vacated the death sentence, and the defendant agreed to a life without parole sentence - the sentence, in my view, he should have been given to begin with. The death penalty is given too inconsistently.

Posted by DRL | August 15, 2007 8:42 AM

It is easy to come up with anecdotal examples of how someone somewhere got a lot less punishment for some crime than someone else. That will always be the case as long as we have multiple jurisdictions and any sentencing discretion. What is your proposal to fix the problem? A nationwide single court system with a single set of laws and a set of absolute penalties for any given crime? That's the only way I can see to get the perfect consistency you desire. I know you are speaking only of the death penalty here - but if we are demanding perfect consistency for it why not all other punishments too?

As for shared responsibility – there is a very good chance that this murder would never have happened if the shooter (whoever he was) did not have 3 of his buddies along with him. Criminals will do things in groups they would never have the courage (if it can be called such) to do on their own. So, yes, all four contributed to the murder though only one pulled the trigger.

Posted by rbj | August 15, 2007 8:47 AM

It is unfair to compare Foster's case to Kathleen Soliah's. They are two (very) different jurisdictions, Texas and California. Of course there will be disparity between any two states application of the death penalty or any other criminal sanction. The question should be, is a particular state (or appropriate subdivision) applying the death penalty in a consistent manner.

"Law of parties" is also know as the felony murder rule, which most jurisdictions have at least had at one time. I'm fairly agnostic on the death penalty, but am not sure it is appropriate here as the killer is already executed.

Posted by John H. Costello | August 15, 2007 8:53 AM

Beldar, a lawyer in Houston, gives a throughly different account of what happened. Foster was the getaway driver for the group -- the four men had been carrying out a string of robberies over several days, including several where the gun had been put in the faces of the victims. The men all shared the loot. Foster was aware that someone could have been shot and killed at any time during their robbery spree.

Posted by Rhymes With Right | August 15, 2007 9:08 AM

1) This guy rolled the dice and lost -- he should have pled out like his two scumbag partners.

2) Perry lacks the ability to issue this pardon absent a recommendation that he do so from the Board of Pardons and Parole. Any attempt to do so without it is an impeachable offense, as well as legally null and void. That is what liberals consistently forgot when they talked about the death penalty under Bush.

Posted by Al Maviva | August 15, 2007 9:14 AM

You may want to go read Patterico's discussion of the case. Procedural deficiencies aside, the actual facts in the case - Foster stated he had a gun then instigated the crime spree during which the murder was committed - make it seem quite a bit less ambiguous. Balko got taken in pretty badly by the anti-death penalty advocates.

Sidebar - as a young attorney I did some death penalty appellate work. The anti-death penalty groups provide canned briefs to help pro bono attorneys with the cases, since it's the same legal arguments over and over again. I never liked the quality of the briefs, they always seemed to be arguing public policy as due process fine points, and I knew their goal was abolition, but I put up with it because everybody is entitled to good representation or the system fails. In one case, however, the tiny three and four word cites they were using struck me as odd, so I very, very carefully read every single case cited, not just for accuracy but also really trying to understand the arguments and how they fit within the larger legal context, the family of cases to which each one belonged. It became clear to me that out of a half dozen major arguments, three of them turned on readings of constitutional law that were flat out wrong. Cases were cited in support of arguments, where the cases actually stood for the exact opposite position. I didn't feel I could ethically sign this particular brief or argue it. A partner who was active in anti-death penalty lobbying first tried to overrule me, then took the case when I refused to argue it.

I agree that if we're going to have it, we need to pay better attention to due process and constantly work on it, but the disingenuousness of the abolition groups, which make one reasonable *sounding* argument after another makes me question the morality of their cause. The death penalty, to my way of thinking, maintains a claim on the moral high ground because it gives equivalent value to the lives of the victim, insofar as a 1:1 or 3:1 trade of the innocent for the unjust is an approximation of morality. The abolitionists claim the moral high ground, but ignore the morality of the acts that landed their clients in trouble in the first place, and are willing to be quite immoral in advancing their cause, with perhaps one of their greater immoralities being the goal of terminally gumming up the capital punishment works by jamming up the courts with vexatious litigation over niggling and irrelevant (and sometimes dishonest) legal points, like the ones I was expected to argue. I have a major problem with that.

Posted by Labamigo | August 15, 2007 9:16 AM

This is the law in Texas.

Its up to the legislature, not the governor, to change it.

Posted by Scott | August 15, 2007 9:39 AM

The list of people in this country who were murdered by murderers who were released from prison very, very long.

If murders are executed, they do not kill again.

That's enough for me. All death penalty cases, at least here in CA, automatically go to the state supreme court for review. And then there is the federal level.

I just don't buy the "innocent man" theory. And as DNA evidence becomes ever more routine, even that will cease to be an issue.

Posted by hunter | August 15, 2007 10:21 AM

I think this kind of case sends a very powerful message to slimeball criminals: help get people killed and face dying yourself, even if you are not the direct cause of death.
We have a young killer in the Houston area right now who in the process of stealing two cars, killed the four kids he was trying to impress as he drove with them as passengers at high speed.
some are saying he is just a poor boy and that it was all an accident. Just like this case, the young criminal killed these people in the commission of another crime. While the young creep in this case is not a cold blooded killer, he is still acriminal and needs to be punished as a clear message.

Posted by DRL | August 15, 2007 10:29 AM

"This is what bothers me about the death penalty. Its application is inconsistent...I'm not arguing that Foster is not guilty of murder...I'm arguing that the death penalty is excessive in a case where he was the getaway driver and not the shooter."

Foster was convicted of murder - just like the shooter. For the sake of consistency, he should surely be executed just like the shooter.

Seems to me you are arguing that the death penalty should NOT be applied consistently.

Posted by Tom | August 15, 2007 10:45 AM

A terrific set of replies. Thanks sincerely, all, for enlightening me.

Posted by BoWowBoy | August 15, 2007 10:49 AM

Every death penalty case in Texas ............... is consistent ............with the juries discretion.

Only way it could be more consistent .................. from the criminal's perspective ...................... would be to impanel the same jury over and over.

I like it the way it is .............. if there is any bias is on the side of society.

Posted by LarryD | August 15, 2007 11:04 AM

Scott's second point is the clincher for me, there is no other way to make sure a murderer never kills again.

Al Maviva's point about morality also hits home, the death penalty abolitionists seem to place a high value on the murders life, but forget about past and future victims.

Posted by Pho | August 15, 2007 11:07 AM

Bit of disclosure... born and spent my whole life living in Texas.

My personal opinion... these guys went out armed on a crime spree. Pretty much they signed up for what happened, whether they did so smartly or not.

Yes the death penalty is harsh, but it is supposed to be. Not knowing more of the details of the case, it's hard to say if I'd have signed off on it myself... but given the fact these animals were running around committing armed and potentially violent crimes... he payed his nickel for the ride. If he'd been smart, he'd have plead out like some of his partners.

Doing something this stupid in Texas, and taking it all the way through to a jury... is reasonably often a considerable mistake.

Too bad for him he couldn't come up with the "I was depressed" defense. For some reason, that seems to sometimes work, even in Texas... even if you've methodically murdered several of your own kids in your bathtub.

Posted by Don Kosloff | August 15, 2007 11:17 AM

There is simply no excuse for allowing murderers to live to kill again. More than 1,000 people in the US have been killed by murderers who were not executed after their first conviction for murder. Those who oppose the death penalty for murder support the murder of innocent people. All the moral smugness, pretty words and clever lies in the universe will not alter that one bit. I opposed the death penalty for many years, thus I am partially guilty of the murders of 100,000 people. Please don't fool youself as I once did.

Posted by Sean O'Brien | August 15, 2007 11:19 AM

Captain, I think you are completely misinformed about the status of some as "shooter". Just because one is not the shooter does not mean that person is not culpable. Foster did more than "drive the getaway car"--he chauffeured armed men around town so they could stick a gun in their faces and rob them. That makes him just as guilty as the person who shot the victim.
And as for the fairness argument, that is simply ridiculous. That one person gets overly lenient treatment does not mean that some other killer is entitled to some sort of cosmic fairness. Any system with juries, prosecutors and judges is going to have these types of outcomes.

Foster should be executed.

Posted by RBMN | August 15, 2007 11:23 AM

Just in general (not this case,) in a conspiracy to commit robbery murder, how guilty is the gang member who cased the neighborhood and picked out the most helpless victims to be murdered, but didn't actually shoot anyone? He just marked them for death and others did the killing. I think an honest thoughtful jury could determine that he was the most murderous of the bunch.

Posted by Monkei | August 15, 2007 11:57 AM

Captain, the TN case is not even close to this case. The TN case is rooted in spousal abuse. not a planned crime. While 7 months vs the death penalty is not even comparable, neither are the two cases. This woman claims to have been abused for years, decades by her preacher husband, I have not followed the case here in TN and even if I did I am not sure if she is telling the truth or not, in any event he did not deserve to die, but the case is not even remotely similar. If she is in fact telling the truth than obviously her case is much different than someone who agrees to drive a get away vehicle in a homocide case.

Posted by agesilaus | August 15, 2007 11:59 AM

I think a lot more people, me included, would be less in favor of the death penalty if we knew that these people would be locked up forever. And locked up in such a way that they could never threaten or harm anyone else including prison guards or other inmates. And that they could never be released.

The only way I can see that is solitary confinement with absolute minimal contact with any other person. Give them TV, books and even allow in prison video conferencing with other prison buddies, lawyers and court sessions. But hardly ever let them out of that cell. Exercise areas should be solitary as well and the route to the exercise area should be set up to work by automatic doors only requiring no guard contact.

Would the ACLU put up with this? Not likely.

Posted by docjim505 | August 15, 2007 12:50 PM

Anecdotal evidence:

People used to be hanged for stealing horses or rustling cattle (as anybody who'd watched "Gunsmoke" or "Bonanza" can tell you!). Crime rates were much lower, too.

Yes, the death penalty is applied inconsistently. I think that this is because citizens have been conditioned to think of it as a penalty that should only be applied to people convicted of the most heinous crimes. It's almost as if prosecutors and jurors will look for an excuse NOT to invoke the death penalty.

I'm with those who think that, whether he pulled the trigger or not, Foster deserves what he looks likely to get. Perhaps if we applied the death penalty a bit more widely, we wouldn't have quite such a high crime rate in our country.

Posted by Bob Smith | August 15, 2007 2:04 PM

The Winkler case should surprise nobody; female murderers (indeed, female criminals in general) get notoriously light sentences.

Posted by filistro | August 15, 2007 2:10 PM

I'm increasingly convinced that docjim is a reincarnation of Judge Roy Bean.

"According to the myth, Roy Bean named his saloon and town after the love of his life, Lily Langtry, a British actress he'd never met. Calling himself the "Law West of the Pecos," he is reputed to have kept a pet bear in his courtroom and sentenced dozens to the gallows, saying "Hang 'em first, try 'em later."

Both the doc and the judge are colorful, irreverent, bombastic and.... oddly likeable....

Posted by unclesmrgol | August 15, 2007 2:51 PM


I'm not sure of your point. Are you saying that it's better that an innocent man be executed than he be determined to be innocent after 20 years in the slammer and then released?

We strive for perfect justice in our courts and laws. Execution is permanent -- if the state is later found to have erred, there is no way to give back to the wronged person any part of what was taken away from them. And the literature is replete with accounts of executions of innocent men. Not having a death penalty allows the state to apologize for the miscarriage of justice if it errs -- with the death penalty, no person exists to receive the apology.

In this case, Foster apparently drove the car and was an active participant in the final robbery of the night (in which LaHood was murdered), following Patrick home with the intent of his gang robbing her. Of the four people in the gang, two were, by accounts, most obviously active -- Brown (the gunman) and Foster (the driver). The others were "along for the ride", so to speak.

The words "apparently", "by accounts", and "so to speak" are deliberately used above, because we have seen many instances of prosecutorial abuse (usually involving suppression of evidence or use of participants in the crime as immunized witnesses having plead to a lesser charge). The case of Randall Dale Evans of Texas is enlightening, as is (obviously) the case of the Duke Lacrosse Team (against which, thankfully, Nifong didn't lodge charges carrying the death penalty). In the case of Foster, two of the witnesses against him "pled out" -- which is a euphemism in this case for bribing them with a lesser charge (and resultant lighter sentence) in exchange for their testimony against others.

And Stormy70 and Labamigo, Article 4, Section 11 gives the Governor the right, without board intervention, to have one 30 day stay of execution. And, if he feels real sure that justice is not being served and the parole board won't serve it, under Article 4, Section 8(a), the Governor can convene an extraordinary session of the legislature to consider a topic of interest to the Governor (ostensibly to right an injustice promulgated under color of law). So the Governor's hands are certainly not tied in this matter if he feels the need to act.


When an individual's rights are trampled in the name of society, the trampler is most often a Democrat.

Posted by docjim505 | August 15, 2007 4:06 PM


Why, thank you! But I prefer Cobb's line from "Silverado":

"We're gonna give you a fair trial followed by a first-class hanging."

Posted by Edward Lunny | August 15, 2007 4:19 PM

The government, at any level, should not be in the business of killing criminals. That being said, life sentences should be exactly that, life long. Too many men have been released from death row after being proven innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted. Too frequently criminal punishment is arbitrary and capricious. Too many judges and prosecutors are more concerned with personal gain than in justice. In those instances where someone has been wrongfully convicted a long term sentence can be reversed . I don't deny that there more than enough despicable criminals in this country, but, government sanctioned killing is not the way to deal with them.

Posted by retire05 | August 15, 2007 4:53 PM

One thing no one mentioned; Foster not only was entitled to appeal his first conviction and the sentencing, he is guaranteed an appeal in Texas.
Did this case go all the way to the Tx Supreme Court? If he is scheduled to be put to death, then the appealate court found for the ruling in the lower court.

We have a saying here in Texas "you kill us, we kill you back."

Posted by Dale Michaud aka TexasDude | August 15, 2007 7:08 PM

Hey, I though pot smokers only got the munchies and laughed a lot.

Posted by Rose | August 16, 2007 3:32 AM

I definitely agree with hunter - a little more liberal application of this penalty, and the pool of complicitors in such crimes would SEVERELY dry up.

And since nothing else the Judiciary Branch is doing these days is drying up atrocious behavior, maybe it is more than high time the Death Penalty receive its proper respect as a deterent - which it rightfully is.

How much application do you think would be required before it would become rarely used BY REASON OF LACK OF SAID CRIMES, rather than abundance of weak sister JUDICIARY.

Judiciary is no place for weak sisters.

Posted by Rose | August 16, 2007 4:04 AM

The government, at any level, should not be in the business of killing criminals. ... I don't deny that there more than enough despicable criminals in this country, but, government sanctioned killing is not the way to deal with them.

Posted by: Edward Lunny at August 15, 2007 4:19 PM

That is stupid beyond any reasonable Survival Instincts of ANY society.

You have NO foundation for such presumptious SUICIDAL assertions.

You have no right under ANY circumstaqnces to blow off the consequences of tolerating the conditions that foster an abusive and vicious criminal environment to be promoted in a community that has a duty to the HONEST AND LAW-ABIDING citizens, AND NONE TO THE MURDERERS and OTHERS who deserve the Death Penalty, or other really tough sentences.


And the best deterent for INJUSTICE is two-fold, here - hanging will put the fear in citizens for any crimes - and the penalty for hanging too many innocent people will also put the fear into the assinine judiciary, and cause them ALSO to remain more honest, when the citizenry have the backbone to make the Judiciary fear being accused of ABUSE OF POWER.

Personally, when the citizenry got hold of some USSR dictators after the Berlin Wall fell - Justice was NEVER sweeter!

And frankly, my dear, some of America's Judiciary are in the same position, these days, along with a handful of Congress critters. They should look to themselves very carefully. They have abused our Constitution and our patience - and any way they carry forward at this date, life on earth is short - terribly short - God called it a VAPOR - and then comes THE Judgement, and they will stand before their Maker, THE Judge - and they will answer to Him personally for all that they have done on THIS EARTH.

They won't like it. I would fear to be in their shoes.

Anyone else here read "23 Minutes in Hell"???

No, I am making no threats.
I am simply warning some that when God Himself considers a man's Cup of Wrath to be full, whew - I don't want to be in his shoes, no sirree, bob.
Now, sometimes, some evil men will have a natural lifespan and die of old age in their own bed, in their peaceful sleep.
Others meet Justice really immediate-like - such as a man called Korah, who challenged Moses for leadership of the ones brought out of Egypt through a path of dry ground in the Red Sea, when the earth opened up under him and 250 of his dearest followers, and their families and property.

God doesn't need my help - but sometimes He tells His people, if they don't move, neither will HE. It's just according to Him, whether you just let Him do it in His time, or obey Him when He tells you to put certain things aside and stop them cold, yourself, as a sign of obedience to Him. To show Him you hate wrongdoing as much as He does Himself.

In America, all we have to do is stand up and vote for people who are willing to do right - AND NOT SETTLE FOR ANYTHING LESS - even if the parties don't want to let us have a choice of candidates.
The power belongs to us, and we shouldn't cede that power to anyone!
We should never forget and we should NEVER let the Government forget - the POWER IS OURS, AND THE GOVERNMENT IS ONLY OUR PUBLIC SERVANT, and NOTHING MORE!

We can ratttle their cage any time we REALLY WANT to. And this is a great time to do so!

Posted by docjim505 | August 16, 2007 7:38 AM

As one who supports the death penalty, I can see how others like Edward Lunny can oppose it. I will even go so far as to say that opposition to the death penalty is not ipso facto discreditable. If we actually DID lock up violent criminals for life or the full term given by the judge, I'd be less in favor of the death penalty. As it is, however, since we can't count on thugs, hoodlums and psychos being locked away where they can't hurt anybody else, let's see what putting them in the grave will do. It think it will work pretty effectively.

I agree that the government shouldn't be in the business of killing its own citizens. But there is a vital problem with this statement: capital punishment doesn't put government in the business of killing people; it is rather a result of the fact that government IS in the business of protecting its citizens. We send our army and navy off to wage war - to kill foreigners - when they present a threat to the peace and security of our country. The death penalty can be viewed in the same way: government is protecting its citizens by removing (permanently) those who have demonstrated that they will do those citizens harm.

I would like to voice my agreement with Rose on this:

How much application do you think would be required before it would become rarely used BY REASON OF LACK OF SAID CRIMES, rather than abundance of weak sister JUDICIARY.

A deterrent isn't much of a deterrent when it is applied inconsistently. If a thug KNEW that he'd hang for committing murder, he might think twice. As it is, he's got a great chance of merely spending a long time in prison. Is that enough of a deterrent? Obviously not judging by our high crime rates.

Posted by Rose | August 16, 2007 3:37 PM

Posted by: docjim505 at August 16, 2007 7:38 AM



Posted by liz | August 20, 2007 1:55 PM


Posted by Bill | September 1, 2007 8:35 AM

Too bad, the liars won again. I wrote to Gov. Perry asking him to resign.

Post a comment