Protester shot in Austin (TX)

[GamestopDorito]

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.

[5whiskey]

^^^ 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.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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.

[GamestopDorito]

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.

[5whiskey]

I'm open to either theory.

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.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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.

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?

[GamestopDorito]

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.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by GamestopDorito

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

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.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by GamestopDorito

Otherwise it would seem to be open season on anyone open carrying.

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.

[GamestopDorito]

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.

[JohnKSa]

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.

[Aguila Blanca]

- 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.

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/D...E.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;
...

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?

[GamestopDorito]

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.

[JohnKSa]

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".

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by GamestopDorito

It simply isn't believable that this guy accidentally drove into the protest.

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?

According to Texas state law ... anyone.

[GamestopDorito]

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.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by GamestopDorito

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.

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.

[ghbucky]

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.

[TXAZ]

Originally Posted by ghbucky

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.

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.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by ghbucky

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.

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?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by GamestopDorito

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.

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 ...

[seanc]

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.”

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.