Protester shot in Austin (TX)

Though given the muzzle flash and the way the interior is still dark, I’d say the muzzle flash is outgoing from the vehicle.
Click to expand...
Given that the police have all the weapons involved, and have stated that Foster did not fire, I think, at this point, we can take it as a given that the muzzle flash is outgoing.
 
However, even if not charged, the driver likely has real concerns about being doxxed, fired from his job, protested at his home, everything he’s ever written on social media being analyzed, etc. He has a long and unpleasant road ahead even before legal fees, indictments, etc.
Click to expand...

All the more reason to practice defensive driving for 2020. With that being said, I understand it is quite likely some drivers may do most everything right and could still be caught up in something like this. I also think this is going to get much worse unless these illegal street closures and armed protests aren’t stopped. This game has been played for 2 months now, and many of the peaceful protestors have made their point and gone home. A silent portion of society who want to continue their daily lives normally is growing impatient with their lives being disrupted and being accused of being racist because of a statistically insignificant number of law enforcement encounters (most of which still are justified). The ones who may openly act out in opposition to such protests may be in the minority, but the ones who agree with and support this opposition will not be.
 
Regarding general tensions in Austin, an impromptu memorial at the shooting site established by the protesters was defaced. The vandal livestreamed himself pouring paint over it and expressed his belief the deceased was a terrorist who got what was coming to him.
 
Well, he’s lucky in the sense that he probably can’t be mobbed out of his job and they won’t be protesting on his doorstep if he lives on post. I’m interested in why the defense attorney decided to release the name though.
 
My guess is because he had indication that his name was about to come out anyway and they decided to get his side of the story out first.

One thing I'm grateful for where I live is that there have been 2 occasions where someone fired in self defense, one was a fatal shooting, but the name of the shooters has never been made public.
 
Lucky for him, he doesn’t have to be a good guy, he just has to meet the legal standard. Of course, to the extent those social media posts suggest he went there looking for trouble, it complicates his self-defense argument quite a bit.
 
That article is hot garbage. It makes unsourced claims that he was threatening people at the funeral, and claims his twitter feed is 'littered' with tweets advocating violence, and then shows a single tweet talking about where to shoot someone, but that tweet is a reply to another tweet, and the article doesn't show the context.

For all we know, it was him having a conversation about to how to deal with the Taliban.

This is the social media smear machine cranking up.
 
I didn't have a strong opinion initially about this incident, but everything that has come out except for the very first stuff (that claimed the protester brandished his gun or even shot first) makes this seem like this guy went looking to hurt or kill someone and got what he wanted. It doesn't seem lawful to me. We'll see.
 
^^^ I think it is a giant leap to take a couple of social media posts found by essentially a propaganda “news” site and declare that the shooter went “looking to kill or hurt someone.” The social media posts aren’t flattering to his SD claim. All the more reason that being polite, even online, will take you far in life. Because of his rash posts (that aren’t proven to be his profile but it is highly likely) I’m not dying to stake my reputation on defending this dude... but I’m not ready to declare “he went hunting” either.
 
Well, if he went looking to kill or hurt someone, working as a rideshare driver seems an odd way to go about it. And he could have easily killed or hurt a lot of people by just gunning his vehicle into the crowd; but he didn’t.

In fact, between firing five shots and driving his vehicle into the protest, the only person who was hurt was the guy who can be seen on camera pointing an AK at him through the window. And as a rideshare driver, I’m betting he has clearer video of the incident than what we’ve seen so far.
 
The claim that the guy with the AK was aiming into the vehicle is one of the things that made me start to question the initial story. People said he shot first, but that wasn't true, so now it's just the brandishing. I've seen blurry video that might as well be a rorschach test for the viewer's own opinions. I have yet to see anything approaching clear evidence that the dead guy aimed his gun into the car but I've seen a lot of people pushing that to justify self defense by the driver.

I say take a step back completely. Whatever your feelings about BLM or the protests, the guy that was killed was libertarian not a leftist and it was his right to open carry in Texas. He deserves as much benefit of the doubt as the man that killed him. Maybe the driver didn't drive violently at people. Maybe the dead guy did brandish and threaten the driver because of an innocent misunderstanding. Maybe the driver reached for his gun to protect himself. Or maybe he went with ill intent.

I'm open to either theory.
 
I'm open to either theory.
Click to expand...

As am I. That’s why we have trials, juries, and due process. Fortunately, at least for now, no one is sent to prison over the opinion of the internet and pundits. Unfortunately, people sometimes unfairly lose their jobs and livelihood over it though.
 
I have yet to see anything approaching clear evidence that the dead guy aimed his gun into the car but I've seen a lot of people pushing that to justify self defense by the driver.
Click to expand...

Did the dead guy even need to aim his AK into the vehicle to create a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury?
 
A car drove at and seemingly almost struck a man legally open carrying his gun. If we're just going with "reasonable bodily injury" you could argue he had reason to open fire.

The guy with the AK needs to have taken some sort of clearly threatening action with his gun to justify self defense by the driver.

Otherwise it would seem to be open season on anyone open carrying.
 
Had the car been driving at him and he fired at it, you could argue AK guy could have fired in self defense. Except, AK guy didn’t fire and the car stopped. That’s how AK guy was able to approach the car from behind. How many times have we discussed on here that once the threat ends, the justification for using lethal force ends.

The test for that justification is usually described as Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy, and Preclusion. Does AK guy have the ability to kill the driver? Sure, he has a loaded AK. Does AK have opportunity to kill the driver? He’s standing at the driver’s window with an AK and his hand on the grip. Even if the AK is pointed at the ground, that’s 2-3 seconds of time before you are staring down the barrel, even if AK guy is as slow as a sloth.

The subjective question is “Is there jeopardy or intent on the part of AK guy to kill?” Your car is being mobbed. There is a guy with an AK standing outside your door and ignoring your command to “get back!” Is the crowd throwing flowers at you and smiling?

And while there is no preclusion duty to retreat requirement in Texas law, the driver can’t retreat here either. He’s in a little metal box that keeps him stationary and does little to stop bullets if shooting starts.

You say that the driver needs to wait for “some kind of clearly threatening action.” What action is that? In what way do you feel the jeopardy element wasn’t met here?

*Edited since the concept of preclusion is a little broader than just duty to retreat and so what I wrote was inaccurate.
 
Last edited:
GamestopDorito said:
I don't know, this guy doesn't really seem like a good guy with a gun.

https://www.ibtimes.sg/garrett-foste...otesters-49321
Click to expand...
I'm inclined to agree with ghbucky. That article is VERY poorly written, and it provides no background to validate the claims.

For example, the purported tweet about shooting at center-of-mass. This is standard training. The fact that he knows this doesn't mean that he made that tweet with any intention of targeting or killing protesters.
 
GamestopDorito said:
Otherwise it would seem to be open season on anyone open carrying.
Click to expand...
No, only people open carrying in the middle of a mob that's blocking a public street, surrounding drivers who just want to get from point A to point B, and pointing the openly carried rifle at the driver of the aforementioned vehicle.

Now you're going to say there is no proof that Foster actually pointed the rifle at the driver. My response is that there's also no proof that he didn't. The standard for being legally allowed to use deadly force in self defense is whether or not the person feared imminent death or serious bodily harm. Not whether there was an actual threat of same, but whether he reasonably believed that there was a threat of same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top