Protester shot in Austin (TX)

I will say two things here since a lot of people are taking issue with what I posted:

- In this situation the driver's car could be considered another one of the weapons involved. He drove through a red light and turned into the protest. I'm sure a lot of the protesters felt attacked by him and not without cause, there have been several instances of attacks on the protesters by random people in cars. That wouldn't have justified shooting the driver (maybe it would have? I don't know based on the video I have seen) but it seems weird to act like the AK guy approaching the car was the inciting incident.

- The whole "open carrying in a mob" thing undermines the 2A. He was lawfully armed. If I marched against the oppressive quarantine rules in Michigan with my SCAR I would hope my friend who marched with his AK for BLM in Texas was treated with the same protection under the law.
 
The social media posts don't change the circumstances of the shooting, but they certainly don't help the shooter's case any.

The biggest concern with that kind of posting is when it suggests that the person was acting based on a plan made ahead of time that involved shooting vs. acting based on the urgent necessity of the moment.

You don't want the prosecutor to be able to say: "He said ahead of time he was going to shoot protesters and sure enough, he got the chance and he did." You'd like to be able to say that the circumstances of the situation were what drove your actions and that you had no choice but to shoot given the situation and no other motive but to save your life.
 
- The whole "open carrying in a mob" thing undermines the 2A. He was lawfully armed. If I marched against the oppressive quarantine rules in Michigan with my SCAR I would hope my friend who marched with his AK for BLM in Texas was treated with the same protection under the law.
Click to expand...
Fine ... he was lawfully armed. He was also participating in an UNlawful activity. First, he was part of a mob that was blocking a public street. Second, refer to Texas statutes:

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.42.htm#42.01

PENAL CODE

TITLE 9. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND DECENCY

CHAPTER 42. DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND RELATED OFFENSES

Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable odor in a public place;

(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner;

(5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy;

(6) fights with another in a public place;

(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code;

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;
...
Click to expand...

Where are my sympathies supposed to lie? Would you not concede that walking up to a car that's trapped by a mob with a "military style" rifle either slung in front of you at port arms, or (as the driver testified) actually pointed at the driver just might be construed as threatening?
 
I will concede that if he raised his firearm and pointed it, not even aimed, at the guy in the car, he was provoking an armed response. But you can't take the car itself out of the equation. It simply isn't believable that this guy accidentally drove into the protest. Who deserves the right to respond to a threat with violence? The pedestrians who had to scatter to avoid being run down? The driver of a car with people beating on the doors and yelling?

I don't think this is an easy issue to resolve. It shouldn't be.
 
Post #8 of this thread has a link to a video showing the actions of the driver. He turns right in close proximity to a number of protesters and drives among the protesters, but nobody actually has to "scatter" out of his way.

Not trying to justify his actions, just pointing out that the video is not consistent with the characterization that "pedestrians had to scatter to avoid being run down".
 
GamestopDorito said:
It simply isn't believable that this guy accidentally drove into the protest.
Click to expand...
Why not? I believe it. He was an Uber or Lyft driver, "on duty" and between fares. Why is it not believable that he found himself in the middle of a protest by accident?

Who deserves the right to respond to a threat with violence?
Click to expand...
According to Texas state law ... anyone.
 
Clearly I don't see things quite like most of you guys, but we'll see how this shakes out. My libertarian brain sure hopes in the end the facts are clear and it won't be guess work of out of context tweets and blurry video.
 
GamestopDorito said:
He drove through a red light and turned into the protest. I'm sure a lot of the protesters felt attacked by him and not without cause, there have been several instances of attacks on the protesters by random people in cars.
Click to expand...

The video taken from behind the vehicle shows he sat through a green light as the first group walked by. Then he made a right on red, which is legal in Texas. If he intended to drive through the protesters, why wait? If he intended to attack them, why stop? And once he did stop, what was the threat?

And if protesters felt attacked by him, rushing to get next to his vehicle with your body seems an odd response to physical danger. I noticed when he started shooting, nobody had the “rush the car” response.
 
All of this discussion about the shooter is leaving out a pretty important detail:

The supposed 'Libertarian' self-appointed security guy was in the process of committing a crime by denying free passage to someone who was legally entitled to use the road.

There is an interview where he stated that he carried his AK because '...they don't let us march in the streets anymore...' and yet there he was participating in an illegal protest blocking traffic.
 
ghbucky said:
All of this discussion about the shooter is leaving out a pretty important detail:

The supposed 'Libertarian' self-appointed security guy was in the process of committing a crime by denying free passage to someone who was legally entitled to use the road.

There is an interview where he stated that he carried his AK because '...they don't let us march in the streets anymore...' and yet there he was participating in an illegal protest blocking traffic.
Click to expand...


The guy who was carrying the AK who approached a vehicle and was ultimately shot by the driver in fear of their life gave an interview just before the encounter stated “If I use it against the cops, I’m dead,” he adds. “I think all the people that hate us and want to say s–t to us are too big of p—s to stop and do anything about it.”

“You look like you’re picking a fight when you’re out standing in front of the city manager’s house intimidating them,” said the head of the Austin PD Police Union.

This may go down in history as the only self defense shooting that doesn't go to the Travis County Grand Jury, but knowing there's a new anti-2nd DA coming into town, probably not.
 
My own Austin story: I was once visiting Austin. I was on the north side of the Capitol rather than the south, and standing in a crosswalk with a “walk” light and legal right of way when a car came speeding towards me. It certainly met all the AOJ tests. Instead of shooting at the vehicle, I stopped walking and stepped back. The car missed me by a few feet and ran the red light.

I suppose I could have shot and claimed self defense but the grand jury would likely ask why I stepped in front of a speeding vehicle if I was in fear of my life? They’d ask why I didn’t preclude the incident by stepping back. And I was certainly angry enough to shoot after he sped past; but the elements of opportunity or jeopardy were no longer met. And shooting people because you’re angry, no matter how justifiably, rarely ends well any how.

I don’t know what it is about Austin. Friendly people but every time I visit, someone tries to kill me with their vehicle at least once. And more than once isn’t unusual.
 
ghbucky said:
There is an interview where he stated that he carried his AK because '...they don't let us march in the streets anymore...' and yet there he was participating in an illegal protest blocking traffic.
Click to expand...
The full quote was, "They don't let us march in the streets any more, so I've got to practice some of our rights."

Exactly where does the Bill of Rights enumerate a right to block public streets and intimidate people just trying to live their lives?
 
I’m pretty sure it will go to the grand jury. However, the outgoing DA just said an earlier police shooting from April wasn’t going to the grand jury until at least 2021. Since she just lost her primary election, she may be leaving the juicy cases for the next DA. The person who beat her was Soros funded. If he wins the general election, which seems likely in Travis County, the new Soros-backed DA will be presenting the charges to the grand jury.

Although, as I recall, the grand jury can take up the matter without waiting for the DA. I’m not 100% on that; but they have a broad authority.
 
GamestopDorito said:
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.
Click to expand...
For someone who claims to be open to either theory, you're trying awfully hard to advocate for one theory and totally discount and discredit the other. That's not what "being open" means ...
 
If I use it against the cops, I’m dead,” he adds. “I think all the people that hate us and want to say s–t to us are too big of p—s to stop and do anything about it.”
Click to expand...

He was LARP'ing as a "protector/savior" figure with a real gun. I hope his endorphin rush was worth it when his intended victim was forced to react and ended the LARP with real life live-action. Don't do this at home! Or anywhere.
 
I will concede that if he raised his firearm and pointed it, not even aimed, at the guy in the car, he was provoking an armed response.
Click to expand...
At this point, I have not seen any proof that the gun was aimed at the person in the car. The one picture that shows Foster at the car with the rifle seems to show the muzzle pointed downward, not into the car.

That said, it's hard to know what it looked like from the perspective of the person in the vehicle. I wonder how many people would be calm or confident enough to wait until a gun was pointed directly at them before taking action. I tend to believe that most people would see a person rushing at them with a rifle in their hands and held as if ready for immediate use as a threat.
 
JohnKSa said:
I wonder how many people would be calm or confident enough to wait until a gun was pointed directly at them before taking action. I tend to believe that most people would see a person rushing at them with a rifle in their hands and held as if ready for immediate use as a threat.
Click to expand...

There will be problems when local officials overlook the actions of these "protesters" and an even bigger problems if they also start to persecute people defending themselves against these "protesters." This is hardly a situation of an organized march or open carry.
 
I wonder how many people would be calm or confident enough to wait until a gun was pointed directly at them before taking action.
Click to expand...

The difference between low ready and on target and shooting is measured in FRACTIONS of a second. Add in action vs reaction time and you are significantly behind the curve as a defender. Its not about “ calm and confident”
 
Sharkbite said:
The difference between low ready and on target and shooting is measured in FRACTIONS of a second. Add in action vs reaction time and you are significantly behind the curve as a defender. Its not about “ calm and confident”
Click to expand...
There is also the question of perspective ... and by that I don't mean one's philosophical opinions regarding BLM, the 2A, life in general, or the price of bananas in Guatemala. I'm talking about the literal meaning of perspective, as in "line of sight."

From a couple of old photos I've seen on-line, I'm going to guesstimate that Foster (the deceased protester) was at least six feet tall. A report I saw somewhere indicated that the shooter was driving a late model Korean or Japanese sedan.

Do the math.

I drive an original Jeep Cherokee with the optional, off-road suspension. I'm 6'-1" tall. If I stand next to my Cherokee, the place where my head would be if I were in the driver's seat comes to approximately my diaphragm (mid-chest) when I stand next to the driver's door. The head of a driver of a typical Asian sedan would come about to my belt line, or just barely above it.

Foster was carrying his AK-47 slung in front of him. I can't see what kind of sling in the video clip of his last interview, but it appears to be a single-point, tactical sling.

A guy his size standing next to a typical Asian sedan would result in the muzzle being pretty close to the same height as the driver's head. It's not difficult (IMHO) to understand how it could easily appear to a driver that the rifle was being pointed at him. And the law is that the situation has to be viewed from the perspective (the viewpoint) of the defendant. It doesn't matter if Foster actually intended to shoot the driver. What matters -- legally -- is whether or not the driver reasonably perceived himself to be in danger.
 
At this point, I have not seen any proof that the gun was aimed at the person in the car.
Click to expand...

And we may never see such proof, even if it does exist, which, it may not.

A still photo is a moment frozen in time. It does not, and cannot show what happened a second before or after. Add to this the difference between the point of view of the camera lens and the point of view of someone in the car, or at another angle relative to the gun muzzle and things can look very, very different.

The point here is simple and twofold. First is that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, and that what something looks like to someone behind, or off the the side can be hugely different than what it looks like to someone in front.

A picture showing the muzzle is clearly not pointed at someone is only proof that the muzzle was not pointed at someone at the instant the picture was taken, and is NO proof at all about what someone else saw, or thought they saw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top