Shooting at Austin protest tonight, 1 dead

[Brisketexan 105576]

42 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

Does APD charge dead people?

No....but what the dead guy did (shot/didn't shot) may be REALLY relevant to the charges the live person faces, if any.

38 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

But granted, that's assuming Plohetski's follow up tweet is an accurate statement. 

Yeah....that's my point.  We don't know. We don't know if the statement "the dead guy never fired a shot" is accurate, or if the statement "there were at least two shooters, and one was likely the dead guy" is accurate.  So, if anyone is saying definitively at this point either way -- the dead guy fired or didn't fire -- is talking out of their ass.  We don't know.  And it's a very relevant quesiton.

EDIT -- just saw the post above.  So, two people who are NOT the victim.  That said, we still don't have facts to rule out the victim either firing, or pointing the weapon and threatening to fire.  Again, we don't have the info, so I'm not in any position to conclude either way at this time.

 

34 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

no cloaky, but gun owners, yall need to have a think about what happened here, because it ain't gonna be the last time. 

Doesn't have to be cloaky at all.  I'm a gun owner.  That's one of the many reasons -- and it's a big one -- that I don't ever carry a firearm out in the general population.  It creates way more risk than it's worth, either to me or to a third part.  I don't want to get shot, and I don't want to shoot someone else.  And carrying a rifle around in a position that's ready to fire in a split second amps up the shit out of the risk of either outcome.  Nope, bad idea.

Edited July 26, 2020 by Brisketexan

[Brisketexan 105576]

35 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

A trained, gun-savvy CHL guy is going to instantly remove "talk it out" and "punch them in the face" from their set of options should they end up dealing with one of those morons. You've left him two options - flee or kill you. That's not smart.

Exactly.  You have informed the world that any confrontation with you is a gunfight.  That's a bad "all-or-nothing" dare to toss out.  It's a really stupid one, actually.

[Neonmoon 38130]

So that reporter is saying APD is saying two people discharged weapons. One person in the vehicle and possibly one person at the vehicle as it drove away. 
 

So it is possible, the first 4 shots are from the man in the vehicle and the 3 shots after were at the vehicle driving away 

[Deej 77173]

53 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

Does APD charge dead people?

Not since Art left. 

[Gourmand 7775]

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

No....but what the dead guy did (shot/didn't shot) may be REALLY relevant to the charges the live person faces, if any.

Yeah....that's my point.  We don't know. We don't know if the statement "the dead guy never fired a shot" is accurate, or if the statement "there were at least two shooters, and one was likely the dead guy" is accurate.  So, if anyone is saying definitively at this point either way -- the dead guy fired or didn't fire -- is talking out of their ass.  We don't know.  And it's a very relevant quesiton.

EDIT -- just saw the post above.  So, two people who are NOT the victim.  That said, we still don't have facts to rule out the victim either firing, or pointing the weapon and threatening to fire.  Again, we don't have the info, so I'm not in any position to conclude either way at this time.

 

Doesn't have to be cloaky at all.  I'm a gun owner.  That's one of the many reasons -- and it's a big one -- that I don't ever carry a firearm out in the general population.  It creates way more risk than it's worth, either to me or to a third part.  I don't want to get shot, and I don't want to shoot someone else.  And carrying a rifle around in a position that's ready to fire in a split second amps up the shit out of the risk of either outcome.  Nope, bad idea.

I think it's reasonable to conclude that the victim never fired his weapon because there were witnesses right there who have said as much. That allegation that he fired or pointed his gun at the driver was denied from the beginning by other protesters and their accounts have been largely accurate and affirmed by police and available video. Additionally, I think we would have known right away because APD was right there as well and would have physical evidence of his weapon being fired. If there was any proof whatsoever that Foster fired that gun, it would have been reported. A guy firing five rounds from an AK 47 is just not something that just goes missing with that many people standing right next to him. 

 

Edited July 26, 2020 by Gourmand

[Foggy Notion 1202]

Here’s what I was referring to earlier from FB...

[Gourmand 7775]

 

[Brisketexan 105576]

4 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

I think it's reasonable to conclude that the victim never fired his weapon because there were witnesses right there who have said as much. That allegation that he fired or pointed his gun at the driver was denied from the beginning by other protesters and their accounts have been largely accurate and affirmed by police and available video. Additionally, I think we would have known right away because APD was right there as well and would have physical evidence of his weapon being fired. If there was any proof whatsoever that Walker fired that gun, it would have been reported. A guy firing five rounds from an AK 47 is just not something that just goes missing with that many people standing right next to him. 

 

The conclusion that he didn't fire seems most likely to be correct.  The conclusion that he never raised the weapon is more in doubt -- the one screengrab I saw showed it as pointed down, but a lot can happen in, literally, a split second.

I'm gonna wait and see.  I suspect we will eventually get enough videos to put together to conclude one way or the other, but we're not there yet.  Sorry if that offends you.

And note, if we want to go the "you have a political bias" angle, I rather strongly sympathize with the protest movement here.  Doesn't mean that an individual protester didn't do something stupid that got him killed.  Also doesn't mean that the driver wasn't itching to create a violent confrontation so he could waste some stupid protester.  I don't have enough info to even begin to reach such conclusions.

Edited July 26, 2020 by Brisketexan

[Deej 77173]

8 minutes ago, Foggy Notion said:

Here’s what I was referring to earlier from FB...

This guy shouldn't be carrying a gun, either. 

Lucky he didn't shoot a bystander. 

[Gourmand 7775]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

The conclusion that he didn't fire seems most likely to be correct.  The conclusion that he never raised the weapon is more in doubt -- the one screengrab I saw showed it as pointed down, but a lot can happen in, literally, a split second.

I'm gonna wait and see.  Sorry if that offends you.

And note, if we want to go the "you have a political bias" angle, I rather strongly sympathize with the protest movement here.  Doesn't mean that an individual protester didn't do something stupid that got him killed.  Also doesn't mean that the driver wasn't itching to create a violent confrontation so he could waste some stupid protester.  I don't have enough info to even begin to reach such conclusions.

I don't disagree but the tone overall of this thread since the beginning was one of "he deserved it" and whatnot and largely gives the driver of that vehicle a huge pass. Not to mention all the audio ballistics experts weighing in as well to defend this anonymous guy shooting a BLM protester.

I'm not in a rush to judgment either but common sense tells me that this was a "shoot first, ask questions later" encounter where the victim didn't fire his weapon. Why do I think that? Because the eyewitness evidence affirms as much (yes, I know that eyewitness evidence can be unreliable) but more notably, if you accept the premise that he did fire, why didn't APD say as much? APD is not exactly on the side of BLM and if they could tell the public about an armed protester initiating a shootout on a crowded downtown street, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't hold back. 

[kevwun 15943]

I was talking with my dad about this when the yahoos were inside the Michigan capitol with rifles protesting masks.  All it's going to take is an accidental discharge  or even a loud noise and a lot of people are going to be shooting at each other for no reason at all.  There is going to be a really ugly scene at a protest at some point.  Whatever point you are trying to make at a protest is not getting across when you have a rifle strapped to your chest.

Edited July 26, 2020 by kevwun

[Cajun 11764]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The conclusion that he didn't fire seems most likely to be correct.  The conclusion that he never raised the weapon is more in doubt -- the one screengrab I saw showed it as pointed down, but a lot can happen in, literally, a split second.

I'm gonna wait and see.  I suspect we will eventually get enough videos to put together to conclude one way or the other, but we're not there yet.  Sorry if that offends you.

And note, if we want to go the "you have a political bias" angle, I rather strongly sympathize with the protest movement here.  Doesn't mean that an individual protester didn't do something stupid that got him killed.  Also doesn't mean that the driver wasn't itching to create a violent confrontation so he could waste some stupid protester.  I don't have enough info to even begin to reach such conclusions.

Yeah, if that's him in the screen grab with the red box then he most certainly did, at least, raise his weapon.

Right, wrong, or in between, that's a raised weapon.

No two ways about it.

[Cajun 11764]

7 minutes ago, Deej said:

This guy shouldn't be carrying a gun, either. 

Lucky he didn't shoot a bystander. 

He did what he could Bro!

[Brisketexan 105576]

4 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

I don't disagree but the tone overall of this thread since the beginning was one of "he deserved it" and whatnot and largely gives the driver of that vehicle a huge pass. Not to mention all the audio ballistics experts weighing in as well to defend this anonymous guy shooting a BLM protester.

I'm not in a rush to judgment either but common sense tells me that this was a "shoot first, ask questions later" encounter where the victim didn't fire his weapon. Why do I think that? Because the eyewitness evidence affirms as much (yes, I know that eyewitness evidence can be unreliable) but more notably, if you accept the premise that he did fire, why didn't APD say as much? APD is not exactly on the side of BLM and if they could tell the public about an armed protester initiating a shootout on a crowded downtown street, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't hold back. 

No, it's beyond just "unreliable" -- it's regularly flat-out FALSE.  There's jillions of studies on this (and I have personal experience with it as a witness of a couple of events -- I have a good eye for detail, and an excellent memory....and I was totally wrong).

I would expect APD to make that statement when they can make the finding, and the fact that they haven't makes it probable that he didn't fire.  But again, I'll wait.

I don't know who deserved what.  As I said early on, I think it's clear that that the driver created the violent confrontation (no judgment as to motive).  But what happened after that is still way up in the air.  

I also commented that when you show up with a visible gun, you are also making yourself a target of someone who is fearful.  The fact that the lone clearly armed person was the one who was shot points in that direction - although again, we'll see.

Don't turn your car aggressively into a crowd of people.  Don't walk around with a gun looking like you're looking for a gunfight -- you may well get one.

[Cajun 11764]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Leave the AK at home.

I'm as big of a 2nd Amendment guy as you'll find on this site, but yeah.

There's a difference between having the right and being wise sometimes.

[DaysOff 8005]

More from Reddit.  
Interview with victim earlier in the day
victim showing off his gun on social media earlier in the month.
Picture of victim earlier in the day
and finally what looks like the victim pointing the gun at the car (though hard to see details)
 
still can’t find anything on the driver...

If you open carry you're probably a psycho and are going to have a bad time eventually.

Dumbest fucking law in this state replete with dumb laws. Is someone going to step to you snoop dog?

[Brisketexan 105576]

Just now, Cajun said:

I'm as big of a 2nd Amendment guy as you'll find on this site, but yeah.

There's a difference between having the right and being wise sometimes.

This, this, 100X this.

The fact that so many of our fellow Americans equate "I can" with "I should" is maddening.

Note that I feel that way -- that is, take the gun out of the equation -- across the board.  I think that cops should be more circumspect about involving their firearms, and that goes all the way down to just the way they position their hand above the holster when they're talking to you.  Positioning yourself to pull a gun is an act of escalating aggression.  It makes an aggressive confrontation several orders of magnitude more likely.  It's a bad fucking idea that dramatically increases the chances of someone getting shot.

[Brisketexan 105576]

7 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Yeah, if that's him in the screen grab with the red box then he most certainly did, at least, raise his weapon.

Right, wrong, or in between, that's a raised weapon.

No two ways about it.

See, I can't tell if he is -- his left arm is down (so not gripping the forestock), and I can't tell if his right hand is doing anything but being on the trigger guard.  And again...I think THAT is unduly aggressive, and I have a huge fucking problem with jackholes who do it, regardless of political angle or anything else.  It's just dumb, and pointlessly aggressive.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11824]

13 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

You can't legally shoot at someone fleeing from a crime even you believe they fired a shot in commission of the crime, unless they specifically threatened you. 

I think that’s why the cops are looking at possibly charging him.

[Brisketexan 105576]

2 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

It amusing that hard core gun rights supporters and not so hard core gun rights supporters agree with anti-gun folks on this particular point.

I support their right, but I sure as shit don't agree with their expression of the right in that fashion,  be they, BLM, Anti-Fa, Alt-Right, gangsta, or furry.

Who the fuck would be afraid of an armed raccoon?

Oh...

[TornACL 7766]

1 minute ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

I think that’s why the cops are looking at possibly charging him.

If we're going to continue to tolerate open carry for all of these ridiculous micropeen cosplay dorks to feel tough, the least we can do is charge the absolute fuck out of people who discharge their weapon unlawfully. 

[4th and 5 4926]

18 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

You can't legally shoot at someone fleeing from a crime even you believe they fired a shot in commission of the crime, unless they specifically threatened you. 

Actually, in limited circumstances you could. So can law enforcement 

[Cajun 11764]

16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

See, I can't tell if he is -- his left arm is down (so not gripping the forestock), and I can't tell if his right hand is doing anything but being on the trigger guard.  And again...I think THAT is unduly aggressive, and I have a huge fucking problem with jackholes who do it, regardless of political angle or anything else.  It's just dumb, and pointlessly aggressive.

A better pic is out there and will come forward.  Right now I'm betting the LEOs already have it.

That one is grainy as hell, but it sure looks like he's got that thing raised.  Not pointed directly at the driver, but per your description of "escalation" (which I completely agree with), it appears raised and at the ready.

Another more clear pic may change my mind on that, however.

[Captainant 27972]

13 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Whether or not he went to full ready, approaching a vehicle aggressively at quick speed with a carbine at low ready allows a pretty easy logical jump to he aims to do bad things.

And a car driving through a red light into a crowd of protesters doesn't allow a pretty easily logical jump to he aims to do bad things???

Why are y'all giving the driver carte blanche on instigating the entire situation? Especially as more evidence comes out that the person with the long rifle didn't even fire his gun?

[Brisketexan 105576]

3 minutes ago, Cajun said:

A better pic is out there and will come forward.  Right now I'm betting the LEOs already have it.

That one is grainy as hell, but it sure looks like he's got that thing raised.  Not pointed directly at the driver, but per your description of "escalation" (which I completely agree with), it appears raised and at the ready.

Another more clear pic may change my mind on that, however.

Shit, man -- as a person damned familiar with firearms, I'm a believer that you even having your hand on the trigger guard in a context of a dispute is an escalation indicating intent to use the weapon, so I cut NO slack in that respect.  Again, a reason I oppose most of these open carry yahoos.  They regularly do what I, a firearm owner, know is an act of naked aggression.  It's bullshit.

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

And a car driving through a red light into a crowd of protesters doesn't allow a pretty easily logical jump to he aims to do bad things???

Why are y'all giving the driver carte blanche on instigating the entire situation? Especially as more evidence comes out that the person with the long rifle didn't even fire his gun?

Most of us aren't giving the driver a pass.  In fact, I have expressly noted that fact in most all of my posts.  The driver started an aggressive confrontation -- whatever his motivation might have been, he committed an aggressive act that started this whole sequence.  He most likely should not escape criminal penalty.  But that doesn't man that his act of firing a weapon a few seconds later wasn't legally justified.  It is a sequence of events, and they will need to be broken down.

[Trey3216 15380]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

And a car driving through a red light into a crowd of protesters doesn't allow a pretty easily logical jump to he aims to do bad things???

Why are y'all giving the driver carte blanche on instigating the entire situation? Especially as more evidence comes out that the person with the long rifle didn't even fire his gun?

For one, if the person with the long rifle didn’t fire his gun, but did in fact raise it and point in the direction of the man driving the car, then one can legally defend themselves as pointing a weapon at someone is considered “show of force”.   

[ztejas 43744]

29 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

You can't legally shoot at someone fleeing from a crime even you believe they fired a shot in commission of the crime, unless they specifically threatened you. 

Texas is pretty kind when it comes to not convicting people that use lethal force against suspects. In this case, I would be shocked if whoever fired the 3 shots doesn't get off scott free assuming they have a decent lawyer. If they reasonably thought that the driver of the car (or whoever fired) had just committed a murder or was still an immediate danger to others after the shooting then they should have a very solid defense (also assuming the gun was registered and being carried legally - but I suppose those would be different charges).

[Captainant 27972]

3 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

For one, if the person with the long rifle didn’t fire his gun, but did in fact raise it and point in the direction of the man driving the car, then one can legally defend themselves as pointing a weapon at someone is considered “show of force”.   

The driver first assaulted the protesters by driving his car at them. If you start a conflict with force you don't (unless you're a cop) get to claim self defense

[ButtFumble 5191]

12 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I'd much rather face a bunch of pissed of Alt-Right or Anti-Fa than:

 

 

 

what about these guys

 

[Trey3216 15380]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

The driver first assaulted the protesters by driving his car at them. If you start a conflict with force you don't (unless you're a cop) get to claim self defense

And you’re the only one on this thread that is so hellbent sure that the driver was some deranged madman intentionally trying to drive into people.  That may be the case, but it is an unknown.   Everyone else here is stringing together a stream of consciousness discussion with all scenarios being possible, because of the amount of public unknowns.  You desperately need for the guy to have aim and intent on the vehicular assault front for some cosmic reason.  Jesus dude, think rationally for a bit. 

[JohnnyRage 1617]

49 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

You can't legally shoot at someone fleeing from a crime even you believe they fired a shot in commission of the crime, unless they specifically threatened you. 

I really don't want to do this, but...

So you are saying that if someone is fleeing a crime driving over a crowd to do so that you can't legally protect life that is not your own?

[Cajun 11764]

Saying, with certainty, that the driver intentionally drove his car into the crowd here is extrememly unwise.  There are obvious plausible possibilities for his actions that do not fit that description.

[MirrOlure 14948]

And you’re the only one on this thread that is so hellbent sure that the driver was some deranged madman intentionally trying to drive into people.  That may be the case, but it is an unknown.   Everyone else here is stringing together a stream of consciousness discussion with all scenarios being possible, because of the amount of public unknowns.  You desperately need for the guy to have aim and intent on the vehicular assault front for some cosmic reason.  Jesus dude, think rationally for a bit. 

Agreed. It’s pretty fucking easy to run over people who are in the middle of the street. The fact that (a) nobody was in fact hit or run over and (b) the driver came to a stop instead of plowing over them indicates that he didn’t have specific intent to run over anyone.

[JohnnyRage 1617]

1 minute ago, Cajun said:

Saying, with certainty, that the driver intentionally drove his car into the crowd here is extrememly unwise.  There are obvious plausible possibilities for his actions that do not fit that description.

I wasn't meaning to refer to this specific situation, was more clarifying the blanket legality statement.

[Brisketexan 105576]

1 minute ago, MirrOlure said:

Agreed. It’s pretty fucking easy to run over people who are in the middle of the street. The fact that (a) nobody was in fact hit or run over and (b) the driver came to a stop instead of plowing over them indicates that he didn’t have specific intent to run over anyone.

Maybe.  But he may also have intended to "show them who's boss" by driving into them - "yeah, these pussies will scatter when I drive into them."  That's sufficient culpable mental state.  Again, WE DON'T KNOW.

We ARE pretty comfortable concluding that he wasn't surprised to round the corner into a bunch of people, being that he saw them and honked at them.  So, he knew he was driving into a crowd.  But what he intended by that....we'll see.

And, if he intended to start a confrontation, he may lose his self-defense claim -- that's accurate.  You don't get to pick a fight, then when someone swings back, pull your gun and shoot them saying "I feared for my life."  That said, there may have been a break in the series of events.  If the driver did fully disengage, and was no longer presenting any threat, then it gets gray and messy.  I'm comfortable concluding these two things, not as a matter of certainty, but of high likelihood:

1) if the driver had not chosen to aggressively drive into a crowd, no bloodshed would have followed.

2) if the victim hadn't rapidly approached, with his hands on a firearm in a threatening manner, no bloodshed would have followed.

Don't sling around weapons -- whether it be a car or a gun -- like a fucking asshole, and nobody is likely to be hurt.

[VABuckeye 2472]

25 minutes ago, Captainant said:

The driver first assaulted the protesters by driving his car at them. If you start a conflict with force you don't (unless you're a cop) get to claim self defense

Oh bullshit.  I’m no defender of the driver shooting the deceased but he blew his horn went around the corner and stopped.  A person in a car assaulting people drives into them he doesn’t stop.  Then he sees an armed man in front of his car with a crowd banging on his car.  This is shared responsibility.  Both parties fucked up and it cost someone his life. 

[JohnnyRage 1617]

1 minute ago, BurntEyes said:

Didn't say that at all. I said you can shoot at someone fleeing a crime seen.

Do you have anything that supports your statement that he was "driving over a crowd"? I have seen nothing that notes the person in car ran over anyone. Might have happened, but not to my knowledge. If so, that's an entirely different discussion. In my post I specifically noted, "specifically threatened you", which allows for him to fire upon the car, if, indeed, he was in danger from assault by a deadly weapon vis-a-vis the car.

See 4 posts above. Not this situation. You are allowed to protect life.

[ButtFumble 5191]

12 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

And you’re the only one on this thread that is so hellbent sure that the driver was some deranged madman intentionally trying to drive into people.  That may be the case, but it is an unknown.   Everyone else here is stringing together a stream of consciousness discussion with all scenarios being possible, because of the amount of public unknowns.  You desperately need for the guy to have aim and intent on the vehicular assault front for some cosmic reason.  Jesus dude, think rationally for a bit. 

all the more a stretch when there seems to be no video of anyone actually getting hit by the car

there are no reports of anyone being treated after being hit by the car

there are no reports of damage to the car from hitting anyone

only a total asshole claims they felt threaten by a car and yet their reaction was to rush TOWARDS the car instead of away from it.....unless of course they are also hell bent on having a confrontation as well which in that case you get what you get

 

this whole thing is just an example of an asshole with a gun that thinks they are going to "enforce things" and intimidate others they feel do not agree with them and they got what they were looking for

 

it is like as a CHL holder if you are in the mall and see a group of assholes fighting and guns get pulled and shots get fired......even if you are 99.99% sure that one or both of them are in the wrong do you pull your gun and start shooting back at the one (or both) that you think are wrong......not unless you have your head in your ass

because you have no idea what was said or done just before the guns were pulled, you have no idea which one of them MIGHT be a "good guy" or might be someone with actual authority to enforce laws, unless bullets are coming at you or your family or others that you KNOW are innocent then you are not facing a direct threat, you never know where a cop might be that thinks you are the shooter (happened recently in a mall in Alabama or Mississippi I believe), you should not want that liability unless you KNOW you are defending innocent lives, you would be better served getting to safety

as has been stated time and again in this thread no one as of yet knows the intent of the driver and you pretty much have a hard time saying "I was threatened by a car" as you MOVE TOWARDS said car and if you move towards that car with a gun and a large group of people pretending that you know the intent of the driver and with no evidence that anyone was remotely harmed by that car and you get your ass shot off then you get what you get

[JohnnyRage 1617]

5 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

The law doesn't back your position.

I'm happy to cite the legals aspects if you want to get into great detail.

The car was stopped. 

The car, to my knowledge hit nobody as it left the scene. If there is evidence that counters that I'll listen.

The car shooter was, by his own admission on Facebook "next to the car" therefore not under direct threat.

The protestors stopped the car. Approached the car with weapons drawn.

Maybe shot at him, maybe didn't.

Doesn't matter, under threat of death, being the armed man with low ready carbine or full ready, he can use his vehicle to escape the threat.

In his attempts to escape the threat of the gunman, he didn't hurt anyone else to my knowledge. 

Being on the side of a car, in which a person is trying to escape a person carrying a rifle and threatening said driver, if driver doesn't threaten you with vehicle, you don't get it to shoot at him.

 

I'm not talking about this situation, I'm talking about your blanket statement of never legal.

[4th and 5 4926]

58 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I believe the very post you quoted pointed this reality out.

And LEO can shoot you in your home just for fucking being there so let's not go down that road.

My statement of the law remains true, yours may not be under limited circumstances 

50 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

For one, if the person with the long rifle didn’t fire his gun, but did in fact raise it and point in the direction of the man driving the car, then one can legally defend themselves as pointing a weapon at someone is considered “show of force”.   

It’s comsidered an aggravated assault for which deadly force may be used in defense of self or another

44 minutes ago, Captainant said:

The driver first assaulted the protesters by driving his car at them. If you start a conflict with force you don't (unless you're a cop) get to claim self defense

Did he? Maybe. Maybe not. 

The question is probably better phrased as did he assault Garrett? While Garrett may be able to use force, or deadly force, to protect himself, that does not appear to be the case as he was to the side of the vehicle. Did he have a reasonable belief that his use of force (the production of a firearm) was immediately necessary to protect another? Or is he just rolling up on a driver surrounded by protesters banging on the car with an AK at low ready, at best?

31 minutes ago, JohnnyRage said:

I really don't want to do this, but...

So you are saying that if someone is fleeing a crime driving over a crowd to do so that you can't legally protect life that is not your own?

Exactly. You see what burnt eyes cannot see. Imagine the church shooter fleeing the church. Ch 9 of the Penal Code could justify deadly force without the “Good Samaritan” being personally threatened. Which is exactly what happened. And 9.51 clearly does do for the police.

27 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Saying, with certainty, that the driver intentionally drove his car into the crowd here is extrememly unwise.  There are obvious plausible possibilities for his actions that do not fit that description.

Exactly.

21 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Maybe.  But he may also have intended to "show them who's boss" by driving into them - "yeah, these pussies will scatter when I drive into them."  That's sufficient culpable mental state.  Again, WE DON'T KNOW.

We ARE pretty comfortable concluding that he wasn't surprised to round the corner into a bunch of people, being that he saw them and honked at them.  So, he knew he was driving into a crowd.  But what he intended by that....we'll see.

And, if he intended to start a confrontation, he may lose his self-defense claim -- that's accurate.  You don't get to pick a fight, then when someone swings back, pull your gun and shoot them saying "I feared for my life."  That said, there may have been a break in the series of events.  If the driver did fully disengage, and was no longer presenting any threat, then it gets gray and messy.  I'm comfortable concluding these two things, not as a matter of certainty, but of high likelihood:

1) if the driver had not chosen to aggressively drive into a crowd, no bloodshed would have followed.

2) if the victim hadn't rapidly approached, with his hands on a firearm in a threatening manner, no bloodshed would have followed.

Don't sling around weapons -- whether it be a car or a gun -- like a fucking asshole, and nobody is likely to be hurt.

Provocation is the word you are looking for and it’s has a specific meaning under the law that’s is submitted in the jury charge. It’s calculated and intentitional for the purpose of claiming self defense. Not just a guy said fuck you first. It means more than that.

 

[4th and 5 4926]

13 minutes ago, JohnnyRage said:

I'm not talking about this situation, I'm talking about your blanket statement of never legal.

Agreed.

13 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

First, a lotta what you stated isn't fact, but suppositions at this point.

Wanna bet on the guy firing a gun in a big crowd into a car that is not, at that point, hitting people, gets charges? Particularly, after bragging about it on social media, particularly given the criminal issues among the BLM movements currently, particularly given a guy with a carbine at low ready approached the driver, particularly given he might have pointed the weapon at the driver? 

I'm down for a wager.

You’re crawfishing now.

but I agree with your statement In this case 

[Foggy Notion 1202]

https://www.pscp.tv/w/1vOGwkPVjBdGB
 

Click on that link to hear Manley’s version of events. Both people who fired their weapons, the driver and the bystander, have been released, pending further investigation. Both are CHL holders. The driver claimed that Foster pointed the AK at him. Driver pulled over and called 911 after the shooting.  

Edited July 26, 2020 by Foggy Notion

[0xdeadbeef 1653]

2 hours ago, Gourmand said:

I think it's reasonable to conclude that the victim never fired his weapon because there were witnesses right there who have said as much. That allegation that he fired or pointed his gun at the driver was denied from the beginning by other protesters and their accounts have been largely accurate and affirmed by police and available video. Additionally, I think we would have known right away because APD was right there as well and would have physical evidence of his weapon being fired. If there was any proof whatsoever that Foster fired that gun, it would have been reported. A guy firing five rounds from an AK 47 is just not something that just goes missing with that many people standing right next to him. 

 

I don't recall see any witness describe someone in the crowd firing at the car as it left, and yet that now seems to be the case according to APD.   

If you could miss seeing (or omit from talking about) a return shooter, you also could have missed (or chosen to not mention) that the victim pointed his gun.

AFAIK, there has not been any clear video released that shows the victim just before being shot.

 

 

[Cajun 11764]

56 minutes ago, JohnnyRage said:

I wasn't meaning to refer to this specific situation, was more clarifying the blanket legality statement.

That wasn't a response to anything you posted.

 

[Cajun 11764]

History may not repeat, but it sure does rhyme...

 

[ztejas 43744]

30 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

First, a lotta what you stated isn't fact, but suppositions at this point.

Wanna bet on the guy firing a gun in a big crowd into a car that is not, at that point, hitting people, gets charges? Particularly, after bragging about it on social media, particularly given the criminal issues among the BLM movements currently, particularly given a guy with a carbine at low ready approached the driver, particularly given he might have pointed the weapon at the driver? 

I'm down for a wager.

Maybe he is charged, maybe he isn't, I'm making the point that I doubt he is convicted of anything for it. Unless, like I said, he wasn't carrying the gun legally.

Here are two statues that apply if you want to read:

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-31.html

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-32.html

I think whoever fired the last 3 shots could absolutely prove to a jury that he reasonably thought that the driver of that car was still a threat to others. The fact that the driver did in fact kill someone already, right in front of the 2nd shooter, should probably get him off easily. 

There are plenty of cases in Texas of people shooting and killing suspected criminals and getting away with it. In a lot of them I'm not sure the shooters were any more justified in using lethal force.

[Gourmand 7775]

I don't recall see any witness describe someone in the crowd firing at the car as it left, and yet that now seems to be the case according to APD.   
If you could miss seeing (or omit from talking about) a return shooter, you also could have missed (or chosen to not mention) that the victim pointed his gun.
AFAIK, there has not been any clear video released that shows the victim just before being shot.
 
 

Because most of everyone in the crowd was scurrying for cover at that point. That makes sense to me. I don't think it makes much sense for the witnesses who were standing right near the vehicle (as in ten feet away) to mistake the victim not firing an AK 47.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[atomheartbevo 90054]

3 hours ago, F250 said:

I started a thread on ToS about 6 years ago about the open carry loons standing in rush hour traffic. I remember feeling very uncomfortable stuck in traffic while strangers were standing at lights holding rifles. I assume a lot of people would feel threatened in such a situation. It creates unnecessary tension. Of course it's legal but only knuckleheads exercise that right. It's just takes two knuckleheads to escalate the situation.

Now we are seeing people all over the country carrying weapons in public where tensions are very high.

If they weren't wearing body armor and carrying a bunch of magazines like they were expecting/wanting a confrontation, it would be a slightly different situation, particularly if it's slung over their shoulder.  But no, way too many have to cosplay like they are patrolling Fallujah.  

Even though I served in the military, I would not feel comfortable open carrying around large groups of people -  I would be concerned that somebody would see my rifle or sidearm and want it, and also I do think it amps up every encounter - I couldn't talk to anybody without them feeling like I was a threat.

I also don't feel comfortable around those open-carrying in crowds, because I have no idea of their background, and given that quite a few of them clearly would not be able to serve in the military, I would not have any faith in their judgement if shit went down - too many of them seem like the type to not give a shit about who is behind whatever person they are shooting at.  That, and various friends who are/have been CHL instructors, worked at gun ranges, etc. have told me plenty of horror stories. No offense to the overweight, but every time I see a fat guy open-carrying and wearing body armor, certain stories I've been told come to mind, and I'm thinking "yep, he was bullied and/or he's slipped into an Eric Cartman mindset that you will respect him."

[4th and 5 4926]

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

If they weren't wearing body armor and carrying a bunch of magazines like they were expecting/wanting a confrontation, it would be a slightly different situation, particularly if it's slung over their shoulder.  But no, way too many have to cosplay like they are patrolling Fallujah.  

Even though I served in the military, I would not feel comfortable open carrying around large groups of people -  I would be concerned that somebody would see my rifle or sidearm and want it, and also I do think it amps up every encounter - I couldn't talk to anybody without them feeling like I was a threat.

I also don't feel comfortable around those open-carrying in crowds, because I have no idea of their background, and given that quite a few of them clearly would not be able to serve in the military, I would not have any faith in their judgement if shit went down - too many of them seem like the type to not give a shit about who is behind whatever person they are shooting at.  That, and various friends who are/have been CHL instructors, worked at gun ranges, etc. have told me plenty of horror stories. No offense to the overweight, but every time I see a fat guy open-carrying and wearing body armor, certain stories I've been told come to mind, and I'm thinking "yep, he was bullied and/or he's slipped into an Eric Cartman mindset that you will respect him."

Exactly. Open carry in anything other than a rural area or on ones own premises is stupid. It invites confrontation and gives away tactical advantage. 

 

Also so many of these mall cop types fail to realize that even in the case of justified deadly force as against an attacker, it is no justification at all to innocent bystanders.

[ButtFumble 5191]

Just now, atomheartbevo said:

If they weren't wearing body armor and carrying a bunch of magazines like they were expecting/wanting a confrontation, it would be a slightly different situation, particularly if it's slung over their shoulder.  But no, way too many have to cosplay like they are patrolling Fallujah.  

Even though I served in the military, I would not feel comfortable open carrying around large groups of people -  I would be concerned that somebody would see my rifle or sidearm and want it, and also I do think it amps up every encounter - I couldn't talk to anybody without them feeling like I was a threat.

I also don't feel comfortable around those open-carrying in crowds, because I have no idea of their background, and given that quite a few of them clearly would not be able to serve in the military, I would not have any faith in their judgement if shit went down - too many of them seem like the type to not give a shit about who is behind whatever person they are shooting at.  That, and various friends who are/have been CHL instructors, worked at gun ranges, etc. have told me plenty of horror stories. No offense to the overweight, but every time I see a fat guy open-carrying and wearing body armor, certain stories I've been told come to mind, and I'm thinking "yep, he was bullied and/or he's slipped into an Eric Cartman mindset that you will respect him."

 

not to mention we not have Louisville and Aurora, CO to prove without a doubt what you are saying about the unqualified nature of some of the assholes carrying guns at these protest

the fuck face in Louisville just went to pick his butt or something and instead squeezed the trigger and shot three other idiots

the fuck face in CO did exactly what you said and just fired off rounds at the "incoming threat" and shot a bunch of other idiots