Shooting at Austin protest tonight, 1 dead

[ButtFumble 5180]

11 minutes ago, ztejas said:

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.

 

if it turns out the person in the car is not charged then in my opinion the "medic facebook hero" should be charged to the fullest extent of the law

it is just like I said about seeing a group of assholes fighting in the mall and guns come out.....if you as a CHL holder think you are going to jump in and "defend the good" then you better be ready to face the consequences if it turns out you were not defending anything other than your feeling that you having a gun means you can start shooting at anything and everything that YOU see as a threat

it is laughable that a group of idiots protesting "police violence" are suddenly so ready to pull guns and shoot at anything and everything they see as a threat and they expect to not face much of any consequence for doing so if it turns out they were in fact not on the side of "the good or innocent"

sure some will say that police are "professionals" and thus they should be above making mistakes that others will be given leeway for......but those same people making that argument are often the ones that want the police to be more human......but they do not allow the police to have the human ability to make a mistake in a stressful violence situation.....but of course when they as a random asshole with a gun get involved in something they are free to make all the mistakes they wish because well "thought was doin good"

[ztejas 43476]

2 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

if it turns out the person in the car is not charged then in my opinion the "medic facebook hero" should be charged to the fullest extent of the law

I don't think it matters whether the person in the car is charged or not. They are independent cases.

[ButtFumble 5180]

Just now, ztejas said:

I don't think it matters whether the person in the car is charged or not. They are independent cases.

not really IMO (I am not sure how the law will see it though)

you have a responsibility as a gun owner and a CHL holder to KNOW you are facing a real threat to your life or the life of an INNOCENT person before you draw and fire

if the person in the car is not charged then it was because they shot someone that was a threat to them.....thus the medic was not shooting to defend an innocent person they were shooting to defend a criminal and you should not get a pass for getting involved in that and using your gun

if you walk into a Cstore and see someone with a gun beating the shit out of someone else and you shoot that person with the gun and it turns out they were the clerk that was beating the shit out of a robber that has or had a gun or other weapon then you should be charged

[Leeroy Jenkins 2409]

My guess on what went down

Driver of the car was either pissed or afraid.  Mass group of people approaching with the intent purpose of fucking up the road.  Driver makes a move to get out of the area and can’t.  That may have been due to people in the way.  If you watch multiple videos online the protesters have a tendency to rush the drivers in these events.  The protesters rush the car. The driver may now be rightfully scared at this point with people hitting on the car and yelling.   Driver looks up and there is a dude with an AK up against his shoulder who probably thought he was going to teach this driver a lesson and scare him due to his AK.  Well that didn’t work as planned and the driver took out the guy with the AK.  
 

Several things I am interested in learning.  Did the driver have his window down?   I found it interesting that no one else was hit.  The shooter was either really calm or a pretty good shot.  I am also very interested in the background of the shooter.   Also did the driver turn himself in?  That hasn’t been made clear.  Who else was in the car?  Why were they out driving on Congress at that time?  

[JohnnyRage 1617]

I believe a lot of this comes down to subjective reasonability.

@Leeroy Jenkins, the driver/shooter called 911 and pulled over to surrender.

Edited July 26, 2020 by JohnnyRage

[UnivTex34 1763]

3 minutes ago, Leeroy Jenkins said:

My guess on what went down

Driver of the car was either pissed or afraid.  Mass group of people approaching with the intent purpose of fucking up the road.  Driver makes a move to get out of the area and can’t.  That may have been due to people in the way.  If you watch multiple videos online the protesters have a tendency to rush the drivers in these events.  The protesters rush the car. The driver may now be rightfully scared at this point with people hitting on the car and yelling.   Driver looks up and there is a dude with an AK up against his shoulder who probably thought he was going to teach this driver a lesson and scare him due to his AK.  Well that didn’t work as planned and the driver took out the guy with the AK.  
 

Several things I am interested in learning.  Did the driver have his window down?   I found it interesting that no one else was hit.  The shooter was either really calm or a pretty good shot.  I am also very interested in the background of the shooter.   Also did the driver turn himself in?  That hasn’t been made clear.  Who else was in the car?  Why were they out driving on Congress at that time?  

APD claimed the driver pulled over and called 911 reporting he had fired his weapon

[Leeroy Jenkins 2409]

1 minute ago, UnivTex34 said:

APD claimed the driver pulled over and called 911 reporting he had fired his weapon

I missed that. Thanks.  

[EuroHorn 3265]

 

[LebongJames 1812]

Have they said who fired first?

[dcar00 14269]

the guy with the AK standing next to a car having the AK pointing down(low ready) wouldn't have to raise it much for the driver(sitting much lower) believe it be pointing at him.

does anyone know if the protest was permitted?

stupid on all sides but this is what happens when you don't have police monitoring a permitted protest.  that car never should have been able to turn right if there were barricades and officers on the protest route.

the city needs to get this gotdam shit under control asap.

 

[dcar00 14269]

8 minutes ago, Leeroy Jenkins said:

My guess on what went down

Driver of the car was either pissed or afraid.  Mass group of people approaching with the intent purpose of fucking up the road.  Driver makes a move to get out of the area and can’t.  That may have been due to people in the way.  If you watch multiple videos online the protesters have a tendency to rush the drivers in these events.  The protesters rush the car. The driver may now be rightfully scared at this point with people hitting on the car and yelling.   Driver looks up and there is a dude with an AK up against his shoulder who probably thought he was going to teach this driver a lesson and scare him due to his AK.  Well that didn’t work as planned and the driver took out the guy with the AK.  
 

Several things I am interested in learning.  Did the driver have his window down?   I found it interesting that no one else was hit.  The shooter was either really calm or a pretty good shot.  I am also very interested in the background of the shooter.   Also did the driver turn himself in?  That hasn’t been made clear.  Who else was in the car?  Why were they out driving on Congress at that time?  

the driver/shooter called 911 I assume he turned himself in but IMO may have left the area to get away from the situation before turning himself in.

[Helobious 9462]

3 minutes ago, LebongJames said:

Have they said who fired first?

Police have stated Foster never fired his weapon. First shooter was driver, 2nd shooter was a bystander firing at fleeing driver. 

[Hefeweizen 5328]

Guy in the car is fixing to have his life ruined either way.  I agree with everyone saying open carry at a protest is just asking for trouble.  
 

And the third guy who shot at the fleeing car needs to be charged.  He is an idiot.  He could easily have killed another bystander or two.

[Neonmoon 38129]

1 hour 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.

Intention is hard to prove. It will be subjective. From the video, do you believe the driver saw the crowd in front of him? Did he believe there was enough space to maneuver through the crowd without hitting a person? Obviously he didn’t hit anybody but he did have to stop before hitting a person. Why would he see the crowd and still try and drive through it? 
 

It will be an interesting case to be sure. Or maybe APD does not charge him? Then will there be a civil case? I want to hear more witness testimony. And not just from the people emotionally invested. 

[bolverk 29687]

2 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

I have yet to see a single person anywhere in this thread state the dead, "deserved it". Please site.

And eyewitness testimony is not unreliable, it's actually far far worse than unreliable. And every bit of that testimony has come from BLM protestors with a very very clear reason for bias.

This guy said it and he got 7 "likes" for it on page 2 from:

Art Vandelay

Immortal

WBT

Jkwellborn

Lat22

Brotha Horn

Bill Brasky

8 hours ago, Fondren & Main said:

He earned it.  I can’t believe how many people on this site defend asshole behavior.  Get the fuck out of the road.  Nobody is going to support your protests if you engage in asshole behavior.

So, yeah, a sizable contingent.

[closetohumping 17449]

8 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Carrying a gun might be asshole behavior, or shooting one, but protesting in the road is asshole behavior?

Kind of.  I'd like to get home sometime.  Doesn't mean I hate George Floyd.

[ABSR 5315]

2 hours 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

How many people did he run over?  How many are in the hospital?

He does appear to run through a red light and turn right where people are in the street.  And then he stops.   Now maybe he did plow into them and If so I would go back to my prior questions, but my understanding is he turned and then stopped.

So while he should not have done that, to say he “assaulted” anyone appears to be incorrect unless there is information I have not seen.

[Cajun 11714]

5 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Intention is hard to prove. It will be subjective. From the video, do you believe the driver saw the crowd in front of him? Did he believe there was enough space to maneuver through the crowd without hitting a person? Obviously he didn’t hit anybody but he did have to stop before hitting a person. Why would he see the crowd and still try and drive through it? 
 

It will be an interesting case to be sure. Or maybe APD does not charge him? Then will there be a civil case? I want to hear more witness testimony. And not just from the people emotionally invested. 

Listened to the APD chief on KLBJ about an hour ago giving an update.  He talked about two shooters being detained and questioned by Homicide and then he said both had been "released pending further investigation".

Just passing on.

This will absolutely hinge on "intention" and, yes, it will be extremely hard to prove all the way around.

[Paco 1934]

 Why were they out driving on Congress at that time?  

Maybe because it's a public roadway?

[Cajun 11714]

4 minutes ago, ABSR said:

How many people did he run over?  How many are in the hospital?

He does appear to run through a red light and turn right where people are in the street.  And then he stops.   Now maybe he did plow into them and If so I would go back to my prior questions, but my understanding is he turned and then stopped.

So while he should not have done that, to say he “assaulted” anyone appears to be incorrect unless there is information I have not seen.

I accidentally turned onto a one way street during SXSW a couple of years ago and ended up in a crowd.  I was driving for Lyft and it was pure chaos and I thought I was making the correct turn, but wasn't.  I rolled down my window and apologized profusely, red-faced with embarrassment, I'm sure. 

I certainly wasn't "assaulting" anyone.  

 

[Homercles 10206]

36 minutes ago, LebongJames said:

Have they said who fired first?

Han

[Somnio 751]

36 minutes ago, LebongJames said:

Have they said who fired first?

It does not matter.  Aggressive, masked, and armed individual moving towards your car?  It's absolutely reasonable to believe the person in the car feared for their life.  They are well within their rights to use deadly force.

[Neonmoon 38129]

I personally believe (not that it really matters when it comes to law)  the driver instigated the confrontation. For whatever reason, he did not appreciate the crowd and decided to drive through them. He initially ran a red light, and even though he did not hit a person, he intentionally drove into a pedestrian filled roadway. Now he and many on here will argue that he was well within his rights to attempt to turn onto the street that is meant for cars, but I believe the mere presence of many pedestrians makes that turn dangerous and possibly illegal. Again that is something the police and or a jury will decide. His act instigated the “swarm” around his vehicle which led to him seeing a man with an open carry AK, which he felt threatened, and discharged his weapon into the crowd. Various things will need to be determined if a crime was committed or if the shoot was justified, but if the car did not run a red light and turn into a pedestrian filled street, and instead waited for them to pass, a man would not be dead. 

[Tom 2959]

32 minutes ago, bolverk said:

This guy said it and he got 7 "likes" for it on page 2 from:

Art Vandelay

Immortal

WBT

Jkwellborn

Lat22

Brotha Horn

Bill Brasky

So, yeah, a sizable contingent.

LOL, at least half of these usernames shouldn't surprise anyone.   Lots of very fine people on both sides.

Edited July 26, 2020 by Tom

[Serak The Preparer 3431]

45 minutes ago, Helobious said:

Police have stated Foster never fired his weapon. First shooter was driver, 2nd shooter was a bystander firing at fleeing driver. 

You dummy, that can't be the case. All the gun experts in this thread very clearly analyzed the audio of the cell phone video and conclusively found that the first shots were made by a long gun / rifle / AK-47.

[Wally Pryor 5261]

6 hours ago, clapclapclap said:

While the deceased's work with the homeless was admirable, he allegedly posted this on his Facebook page (no longer accessible):

I can't assume he approached the car as a peacemaker.

 

Thanks for posting.  I'll assume it's from Foster's account.

 

Really sure we're going to see a lot of coverage on how swell a guy he was.  And this innocent part about wishing blindness upon other humans?  Shockingly, well, we won't see that mentioned anywhere.  But that's an unbridled piece of shit.   But, hey, it is late July 2020, so wishing blindness, decapitation or death upon cops is a requisite - a must and necessary for one's resume' and / or business card. 

 

Guessing this was just the cusp of things with Foster.  Doubtful his dislike just ended at supporting blindness.  Oh well, we'll never know.  

 

I felt bad for the guy at first.  But the ship has sailed.    

[Somnio 751]

18 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

 Various things will need to be determined if a crime was committed or if the shoot was justified, but if the car did not run a red light and turn into a pedestrian filled street, and instead waited for them to pass, a man would not be dead. 

Another take would be if the protesters had not illegally obstructed a roadway, and were not in violation of the Austin-Travis County Stay at Home order a man would not be dead.

Yet another take is even if they still ignored the above laws, had armed protesters not swarmed the individual's car looking for trouble a man would not be dead.

[EuroHorn 3265]

30 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I personally believe (not that it really matters when it comes to law)  the driver instigated the confrontation. For whatever reason, he did not appreciate the crowd and decided to drive through them. He initially ran a red light, and even though he did not hit a person, he intentionally drove into a pedestrian filled roadway. Now he and many on here will argue that he was well within his rights to attempt to turn onto the street that is meant for cars, but I believe the mere presence of many pedestrians makes that turn dangerous and possibly illegal. Again that is something the police and or a jury will decide. His act instigated the “swarm” around his vehicle which led to him seeing a man with an open carry AK, which he felt threatened, and discharged his weapon into the crowd. Various things will need to be determined if a crime was committed or if the shoot was justified, but if the car did not run a red light and turn into a pedestrian filled street, and instead waited for them to pass, a man would not be dead. 

From the account I posted above it sounds like  the shooter didn’t fire into the crowd but fired into the person who pointed a weapon at him. 

Edited July 27, 2020 by EuroHorn

[Wally Pryor 5261]

53 minutes ago, Paco said:

 

 

Maybe because it's a public roadway?

 

Don't be an idiot.  

There's no place for injecting common sense in July 2020.

[ButtFumble 5180]

24 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I personally believe (not that it really matters when it comes to law)  the driver instigated the confrontation. For whatever reason, he did not appreciate the crowd and decided to drive through them. He initially ran a red light, and even though he did not hit a person, he intentionally drove into a pedestrian filled roadway. Now he and many on here will argue that he was well within his rights to attempt to turn onto the street that is meant for cars, but I believe the mere presence of many pedestrians makes that turn dangerous and possibly illegal. Again that is something the police and or a jury will decide. His act instigated the “swarm” around his vehicle which led to him seeing a man with an open carry AK, which he felt threatened, and discharged his weapon into the crowd. Various things will need to be determined if a crime was committed or if the shoot was justified, but if the car did not run a red light and turn into a pedestrian filled street, and instead waited for them to pass, a man would not be dead. 

 

and if a group of people that claim they are upset by the police violently violating people's civil rights did not arm themselves and then go around impeding other people's rights to freely travel and move about unrestricted then this also would not happen

just because you are upset about something that does not give you the right to block others and their freedom of movement and travel that is guaranteed under the constitution

if the police do not have the right to randomly stop me or impede me from going down a public roadway or sidewalk or any other place I have the right to be unless they suspect me of a crime then surely a bunch of random assholes especially armed ones screaming about civil rights do not have the right to do that to me....and of they think they do and they meet someone else that is also armed and that feels they want to use their gun (or car or other weapon) to help them retain their civil rights and someone in the other group gets fucked up or killed well fuck them

when your attempt to correct some "wrong" results in you doing the exact same thing or worse well fuck off with any feeling sorry for you

[Neonmoon 38129]

8 minutes ago, Somnio said:

Another take would be if the protesters had not illegally obstructed a roadway, and were not in violation of the Austin-Travis County Stay at Home order a man would not be dead.

Yet another take is even if they still ignored the above laws, had armed protesters not swarmed the individual's car looking for trouble a man would not be dead.

Well the first take requires suspension of intellect. 

But I agree with your second take, but it doesn’t dispute my point of instigation. 

[ztejas 43476]

34 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

if the person in the car is not charged then it was because they shot someone that was a threat to them.....thus the medic was not shooting to defend an innocent person they were shooting to defend a criminal and you should not get a pass for getting involved in that and using your gun

Well whether you should or shouldn't get a pass doesn't really matter. I'm just going off of how the law is written and what tends to be the outcome in cases like this. The bystander has no idea in the moment whether or not the shooter will be charged, what he might be charged with, and who will or won't be seen as a "criminal" in the eyes of a judge and jury. He witnesses someone shoot someone else five times without any previous shots being fired and then fires three shots at the shooter. He can easily make the claim in court that he reasonably suspected he had just witnessed a murder, and that he reasonably believed the driver of the car was still an imminent danger to others.

[Armybrat 40851]

1 hour ago, ButtFumble said:

 

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

 

Saw this posted on a gun forum.

Edited July 27, 2020 by Armybrat

[Wally Pryor 5261]

7 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Taking a side of right or wrong for either party at this point is simply a cognative bias likely based on your political or social predispositions.

We do have one guy that had no interest, documented, for the wellbeing of other people.  He just didn't consider police officers to be other people.

 I'm not a Repubican or Democrat. Doesn't matter -  I do believe that all people matter.    Apparently, Foster didn't have the same interest. 

That sucks. 

 

Edited July 27, 2020 by Wally Pryor

[BradInATX 9208]

6 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Taking a side of right or wrong for either party at this point is simply a cognative bias likely based on your political or social predispositions.

You can say that again.

[Neonmoon 38129]

Just now, BurntEyes said:

And if a protestor carrying a carbine at low ready didn't "Swarm" the vehicle he might not have felt as it it life were in danger.

There ain't no innocence or good guy in this story based on the facts we have available at the present time.

Taking a side of right or wrong for either party at this point is simply a cognative bias likely based on your political or social predispositions.

I don’t dispute the fact that the swarm escalated the situation. It absolutely did. I’m not looking for an innocent or good guy. I was simply stating my belief that the driver instigated the confrontation by running a red light into a pedestrian filled roadway. That belief is based on video evidence. The driver clearly ran the red light. The driver clearly turned onto the street currently filled with pedestrians. There were consequences to that action as well as the swarm action. 

How is positing the driver instigated the incident by making a right hand turn into a crowded street a cognitive bias based on my supposed political or social dispositions? 

[ButtFumble 5180]

Just now, ztejas said:

Well whether you should or shouldn't get a pass doesn't really matter. I'm just going off of how the law is written and what tends to be the outcome in cases like this. The bystander has no idea in the moment whether or not the shooter will be charged, what he might be charged with, and who will or won't be seen as a "criminal" in the eyes of a judge and jury. He witnesses someone shoot someone else five times without any previous shots being fired and then fires three shots at the shooter. He can easily make the claim in court that he reasonably suspected he had just witnessed a murder, and that he reasonably believed the driver of the car was still an imminent danger to others.

although there is a better than should be chance the medic does not get charged I do not believe there is really anything in the law that allows one to draw a gun and fire at someone that turns out to be innocent of any crime even if they believed at the time they might be seeing a crime

going further down the same path if yet another bystander was armed and saw without a doubt that the dead guy did on fact aim the gun at the car driver and was a clear threat to them and the driver had the full right to defend against it....and then that bystander sees the medic shooting at the car driver....does that bystander then get to draw their gun and shoot and kill the medic?.....because after all from there to that bystander it would appear that a large violent group of people are further trying to kill an innocent car driver

and where does it go from there?

when you carry a gun as a civilian you have a high responsibility to know who you are shooting at and why and that is why anyone with an ounce of common sense and even a single functioning brain cell would not be armed with these protesters or any others and of they were it would be concealed and for PERSONAL defense or the defense of people you 100% know and are with and know the intentions of.....it would not be too defend some other random armed asshole that you THINK might be in the right

[BradInATX 9208]

4 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I don’t dispute the fact that the swarm escalated the situation. It absolutely did. I’m not looking for an innocent or good guy. I was simply stating my belief that the driver instigated the confrontation by running a red light into a pedestrian filled roadway. That belief is based on video evidence. The driver clearly ran the red light. The driver clearly turned onto the street currently filled with pedestrians. There were consequences to that action as well as the swarm action. 

How is positing the driver instigated the incident by making a right hand turn into a crowded street a cognitive bias based on my supposed political or social dispositions? 

 

I mean there's pretty much two camps on this thread at this point. There's the "let's wait and see what comes out" camp which is probably about 95% of people here, all over the spectrum in terms of social beliefs. Then there's the 6-8 people who think they're being sly and hiding their glee at this man's death from us by justifying it with "maybe they shouldn't have been jaywalking!". 

You guys should just come out and be straight with us and say that you're happy a BLM protester died. It's probably a (slightly) less embarrassing take than "they were jaywalking they deserved it" and at least you'd have grown some balls and stopped being passive aggressive.

Edited July 27, 2020 by BradInATX

[Longhorn 145]

12 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I don’t dispute the fact that the swarm escalated the situation. It absolutely did. I’m not looking for an innocent or good guy. I was simply stating my belief that the driver instigated the confrontation by running a red light into a pedestrian filled roadway. That belief is based on video evidence. The driver clearly ran the red light. The driver clearly turned onto the street currently filled with pedestrians. There were consequences to that action as well as the swarm action. 

How is positing the driver instigated the incident by making a right hand turn into a crowded street a cognitive bias based on my supposed political or social dispositions? 

Did the driver run red/turn first, or did a bunch of assholes start walking down the middle of one of Austin’s busiest streets first?

Answer this correctly and you will know who instigated confrontation. 

Edited July 27, 2020 by Longhorn

[ButtFumble 5180]

10 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I don’t dispute the fact that the swarm escalated the situation. It absolutely did. I’m not looking for an innocent or good guy. I was simply stating my belief that the driver instigated the confrontation by running a red light into a pedestrian filled roadway. That belief is based on video evidence. The driver clearly ran the red light. The driver clearly turned onto the street currently filled with pedestrians. There were consequences to that action as well as the swarm action. 

How is positing the driver instigated the incident by making a right hand turn into a crowded street a cognitive bias based on my supposed political or social dispositions? 

you are pretending that the "pedestrians" were innocent people just walking away from the bars and clubs or from a UT game.....you are trying to obfuscate the fact that they were in fact attempting to violate one of the most basic civil rights of freedom of movement without obstruction

their stated purpose is to disrupt others and the freedoms of others because of their perceived notion that the police do that to those they support

because you believe you are on the side of "good" that does not mean you can do the very things you accuse "evil" of doing especially when you are doing it to random people that you know nothing at all about

Edited July 27, 2020 by ButtFumble

[Helobious 9462]

7 minutes ago, Wally Pryor said:

We do have one guy that had no interest, documented, for the wellbeing of other people.  He just didn't consider police officers to be other people.

 I'm not a Repubican or Democrat. Doesn't matter -  I do believe that all people matter.    Apparently, Foster didn't have the same interest. 

That sucks. 

 

Lol. No one matters. That’s what both sides will never understand. The world has never stopped turning because someone got killed or some police got blinded with lasers, and it never will.

[Neonmoon 38129]

20 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

 

and if a group of people that claim they are upset by the police violently violating people's civil rights did not arm themselves and then go around impeding other people's rights to freely travel and move about unrestricted then this also would not happen

just because you are upset about something that does not give you the right to block others and their freedom of movement and travel that is guaranteed under the constitution

if the police do not have the right to randomly stop me or impede me from going down a public roadway or sidewalk or any other place I have the right to be unless they suspect me of a crime then surely a bunch of random assholes especially armed ones screaming about civil rights do not have the right to do that to me....and of they think they do and they meet someone else that is also armed and that feels they want to use their gun (or car or other weapon) to help them retain their civil rights and someone in the other group gets fucked up or killed well fuck them

when your attempt to correct some "wrong" results in you doing the exact same thing or worse well fuck off with any feeling sorry for you

There is a lot of emotion in this post. You are clearly upset by the protestors reasons or the way they chose to display their protest. Or how it has affected your rights as a citizen. It is a complicated issue. It might best be talked about in CR. I just want to discuss the alleged shooting and death. 
 

I will say the constitution does guarantee freedom of movement but not in the way you have suggested whatsoever. The Supreme Court has specifically ruled that while Crandall v Nevada does guarantee freedom of movement is a constitutional right, it does not imply a right to use any particular mode of travel, such as driving an automobile

[staboner 4984]

5 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

It's APD so..... 

[BradInATX 9208]

11 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

you are pretending that the "pedestrians" were innocent people just walking away from the bars and clubs or from a UT game.....you are trying to obfuscate the fact that they were in fact attempting to violent one of the most basic civil rights of freedom of movement without obstruction

their stated purpose is to disrupt others and the freedoms of others because of their perceived notion that the police do that to those they support

because you believe you are on the side of "good" that does not mean you can do the very things you accuse "evil" of doing especially when you are doing it to ransom people that you know nothing at all about

 

People milling about in the street = "ATTEMPTING TO VIOLENT ONE OF THE MOST BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS". Good fucking grief. Don't get me started on the guy on Manchaca who was going 28 in a 40 in front of me yesterday. He caused me to hit a red light I would have made normally yesterday. Literally Hitler.

I actually got his license plate and reported it to the ACLU, but for some reason they sent me a form letter that told me to stop being a pearl-clutching pussy.

Edited July 27, 2020 by BradInATX

[Neonmoon 38129]

14 minutes ago, Longhorn said:

Did the driver run red/turn first, or did a bunch of assholes start walking down the middle of one of Austin’s busiest streets first?

Answer this correctly and you will know who instigated confrontation. 

The protestors started walking first. Absolutely. Now you must prove to me how people walking instigated a car running a red light into a crowd of people? 

Edited July 27, 2020 by Neonmoon

[Gourmand 7774]

6 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

1) I put near zero faith in eye witness testimony as it is among the worst type of evidence in criminal prosecutions

2) I put even less faith in eye witness testimony that has a very specific motive to side with one party in criminal incidents. In fact, I openly suspect it of being incorrect.

3) I am happy to provide boat loads of data/evidence as to why eye witness testimony is absolutely worthless in any situation.

4) In the short clip of the guy he is far more dedicated to expressing a desire to use a firearm than he is the right to do so.

5) I support his right to carry, just like the other idiots right in this situation. However, while I support that right it doesn't mean I support the way in which that right is expressed nor does it mean I support the person expressing the right. I support neo-nazis rights to express the first too, but I fucking hate them. So I am clear, I think both these guys were absolute idiots. I've no dog in the fight. My dog didn't show up anywhere.

I can only go off the evidence I have seen personally, which isn't much. I have seen a video of the deceased and it doesn't support your suppositions at all. Not that ultimately it may turn out you are correct. You might be. I don't know and don't have further opinion as I'm waiting for more actual data and evidence before drawing any sort of conclusion.

Finally, to repeat, no, I don't trust eye witness testimony. Not because I think they are lying intentionally but because it is proven to be highly inaccurate time and time and time again.

Eyewitness testimony wrt important details critical to the legality of self-defense I can buy. Did the driver see the victim point a weapon at him, was a threat perceived, was it legitimate etc. That is defensible. What I rejected from the outset out of common sense, and was proven correct from police reports, is the idea that Foster actually fired first because in order to believe that and disregard the eyewitnesses who were there you have to believe that 1)  there's a conspiracy of silence between people on the street who saw Foster fire his AK 47 but--because they're all BLM protesters--they all individually kept silent about it out of some allegiance to BLM or 2) not a single person of all those people on Congress Ave or any of the people around the car saw him fire it, or 3) people within ten feet of an AK 47 can't recognize its muzzle flash or the sound of it firing five rounds. You don't need to convince me about eyewitnesses making mistakes, but I find it implausible and damn near impossible for a dude to fire off five rounds from an AK and nobody notice. 

 

[ButtFumble 5180]

Just now, Neonmoon said:

There is a lot of emotion in this post. You are clearly upset by the protestors reasons or the way they chose to display their protest. Or how it has affected your rights as a citizen. It is a complicated issue. It might best be talked about in CR. I just want to discuss the alleged shooting and death. 
 

I will say the constitution does guarantee freedom of movement but not in the way you have suggested whatsoever. The Supreme Court has specifically ruled that while Crandall v Nevada does guarantee freedom of movement is a constitutional right, it does not imply a right to use any particular mode of travel, such as driving an automobile

that court case has nothing to do with some random asshole telling you that "you can't pass down some place you have the right to be because I say so"

if you are going to attempt to make that claim then surely you are also in favor of people in neighborhoods telling those they do not like the look of that they cannot travel the public roads and sidewalks in that neighborhood because they have decided they can say that and enforce it?

or does only one side get to infringe on others rights like that.....even if they know absolutely nothing about those they are infringing on the rights of

when you are out and armed and looking to randomly infringe on others rights then you get what you get and no one should try and spin it where the person that gave you what you were looking for was in the wrong because they should have accepted the illegal and wrongful behavior of others and given in to their violation of civil rights (laughably in the name of defending civil rights)

[Longhorn 145]

4 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

The protestors started walking first. Absolutely. Now you must prove to me how people walking instigated a car running a red light into a crowd of people? 

No pedestrians in street no instigation. 

[Neonmoon 38129]

14 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

The bias is that your note above not so subtly suggests the driver had motive and his turn was intentional. We don't know that for a fact. Maybe he was drunk and stupid, or just on his phone trying to hook up on tinder, or watching porn or posting about being a SJW for BLM on Facebook or trying to score weed. 

First off, his turn had to be intentional, because it would be very difficult for him to turn his car vehicle without intending to do so. It’s possible he was passed out and the passenger turned the driver wheel for him. But point taken on motive. You are correct, I suggested he did not like the pedestrians in the way. It is possible he did not see the pedestrians. Which is scary in itself 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Neonmoon 38129]

4 minutes ago, Longhorn said:

No pedestrians in street no instigation. 

So the people walking in the street caused the car to run a red light? Is this a proven phenomenon?