Shooting at Austin protest tonight, 1 dead

Longhorn · July 27, 2020

4 hours ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Requesting a Street Event

To request the use of a public street to hold a "March", a Parade Permit is required 10 days prior to the date of the event. Parade Permits are approved by Austin Police Department – Special Events Office. The permit is at Parade Permits .

https://austintexas.gov/department/sidewalk-protests-and-demonstrations

The permitting process needs to be followed otherwise we are continue to have the unrest. There is a reason why permits are required. To protect the pedestrians and passengers in vehicles by having traffic control and police presence to protect against rioting.

From the NY Times article, one of the protesters said the City of Austin wouldn’t let them march in the streets. It appears they were marching without permit or public safety measures.

“They don’t let us march in the streets anymore, so I got to practice some of our rights,” Mr. Foster told the journalist, Hiram Gilberto Garcia, who was broadcasting the interview live on Periscope. “If I use it against the cops, I’m dead,” he conceded.

Judge Roybeanbag · July 27, 2020

8 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I think you'd be more likely to find and Ivy leager who's great at obfuscation of facts and really giving handy assistance when needed.

And knows clocks.

demos · July 27, 2020

The far right lanes on both sides of Congress have been blocked off with orange traffic cones for the past month, presumably for protestors to use on their regular marches. It looks to me that the driver turned into that far right lane, perhaps by mistake.

Those are the new “temporary” bike lanes. They’re not for protest marches.

GHOSTUSER · July 27, 2020

3 minutes ago, Longhorn said:

From the NY Times article, one of the protesters said the City of Austin wouldn’t let them march in the streets. It appears they were marching without permit or public safety measures.

“They don’t let us march in the streets anymore, so I got to practice some of our rights,” Mr. Foster told the journalist, Hiram Gilberto Garcia, who was broadcasting the interview live on Periscope. “If I use it against the cops, I’m dead,” he conceded.

Why do I suspect this guy means that either (i) the City is not issuing new parade permits in light of the COVID outbreak we are experiencing or (ii) these protesters are not bothering to follow the permitting process.

Longhorn · July 27, 2020

3 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Why do I suspect this guy means that either (i) the City is not issuing new parade permits in light of the COVID outbreak we are experiencing or (ii) these protesters are not bothering to follow the permitting process.

I'm not sure of that answer and doubt we will find it out. Mr. Foster is now dead from gunshot wounds while marching in the streets.

dcar00 · July 27, 2020

26 minutes ago, demos said:

Those are the new “temporary” bike lanes. They’re not for protest marches.

they are now, bub. everything is for protest marches.

immamac · July 27, 2020

5 hours ago, Pam Cummings said:

The only problem i have here is that we have set a precedent where it's OK for this guy to openly carry around an AK 47. And so now you've just created an environment where this exact scenario can play out and nobody is held responsible.

He has every right to have his gun....and so when that driver drives into the crowd and the crowd starts acting aggressive(what did he think would happen?), and he sees a gun and just shoots the person.....again, created a situation that allows for a person to get away with that.

I just ask, how was the shooter to know that the guy with the AK wasn't a cop? How was he so quick to also have his own weapon drawn? And lastly, is it not extremely dangerous for him to be firing rounds with that many people around? Just really lucky that an unarmed innocent didn't get hurt here, imo.

This is an incredibly bad take. What if AK-47 guy shot and killed asshole driver guy instead of the other way around? I think it's SAME SAME result. Tragic accident, totally self-defense etc etc.

I'm upset that EITHER person is deceased or even hurt. It's not that one was right or wasn't right or was within or wasn't within their rights as an American and Texas citizen. This is about the world being so fucked up that sad shit like this can happen because people aren't using their fucking brains anymore they are using guns.

dcar00 · July 27, 2020

who knows if correct but this fox7 article says the group had a police escort. a march of protesters with police escort but you aren't blocking off streets?

https://www.fox7austin.com/news/man-who-was-shot-killed-during-protest-in-downtown-austin-has-been-identified

bad_teammate · July 27, 2020

Not everything life has good guys and bad guys. Not everything fits the fucking narrative.

God damnit.

A man died and a suffering woman lost her husband for nothing. No one learned shit. No one won. EVERYONE FUCKING LOST

Rougarou · July 27, 2020

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Not everything life has good guys and bad guys. Not everything fits the fucking narrative.

God damnit.

A man died and a suffering woman lost her husband for nothing. No one learned shit. No one won. EVERYONE FUCKING LOST

Amen.

3adays · July 27, 2020

Here is a picture of another member of the protestors security team.

Brisketexan · July 27, 2020

24 minutes ago, immamac said:

This is an incredibly bad take. What if AK-47 guy shot and killed asshole driver guy instead of the other way around? I think it's SAME SAME result. Tragic accident, totally self-defense etc etc.

I'm upset that EITHER person is deceased or even hurt. It's not that one was right or wasn't right or was within or wasn't within their rights as an American and Texas citizen. This is about the world being so fucked up that sad shit like this can happen because people aren't using their fucking brains anymore they are using guns.

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Not everything life has good guys and bad guys. Not everything fits the fucking narrative.

God damnit.

A man died and a suffering woman lost her husband for nothing. No one learned shit. No one won. EVERYONE FUCKING LOST

5 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

Amen.

And all the people said Amen. The only thing that's crystalizing about this is that all of the outcomes that seemed to be on the table at that time were bad. And the presence of firearms in every corner helped ensure that outcome. Everyone loses. How perfectly 2020. Everyone loses.

Wally Pryor · July 27, 2020

Rewatching this clip and it's laughable how protesters are being allowed, on a Saturday night, on the main thoroughfare through downtown, to just walk around as if it's a god damned day in the park. If they have a permit, I'd like to see evidence of it. And if there is one, I'd like to meet the unbridled buffoon that granted it.

Jesus Christ. This fucking city needs to get its head out of its ass and get its arms around this shit. Or, again, we are going to see more confrontations. And more people hurt or killed.

Insane, and no other word for it.

Deej · July 27, 2020

7 minutes ago, 3adays said:

Here is a picture of another member of the protestors security team.

Now this guy and the rest of the "security team" will probably be quicker on the trigger.

Rougarou · July 27, 2020

9 minutes ago, Deej said:

Now this guy and the rest of the "security team" will probably be quicker on the trigger.

I think you misgendered her.

Brisketexan · July 27, 2020

2 minutes ago, Deej said:

Now this guy and the rest of the "security team" will probably be quicker on the trigger.

Yep.

Here's an interesting contrast for us to think about. Remember back in the early days of the George Floyd protests, and there were hysterical posts/warnings about "stacks of bricks" and things like that being staged, with the implication/conclusion being that they were WEAPONS, to be used by agitators up to no good?

Again, we saw a huge freakout because WEAPONS (bricks) were being staged in protest areas. That's what the entire freakout was about -- "look at these weapons, staged for use."

But when WEAPONS (guns) are being openly carried by protesters all around -- BLM protests, "reopen America" protests -- well, that's GOOD. The right to keep and bear arms and all that. Nevermind that "arms" doesn't = guns, and only guns. "Arms" just means "weapons." So, we might as well see protesters marching around with buckets full of bricks -- those are arms, what's the big deal?

We have a problem with how casual we are about people showing up at supposedly peaceful protests with weapons -- either intended to actually foment and cause violence and damage, or displayed in a way to intimidate and escalate confrontations that might occur. Again, when you show up with a weapon in view, the chances of weapons being used goes up dramatically. And as a member of the public, it detracts like hell from your message. I felt that way at the "reopen" protests where the mob with guns swarmed the statehouse, I feel that way seeing BLM protesters marching around with guns. It doesn't invite a conversation in any way -- it merely presents the binary choice of confrontation/no confrontation, and the day is a success if nobody gets shot.

We're not a smart people.

Deej · July 27, 2020

12 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

I think you misgendered her.

That one could really go either way. I blame it on years of Leslie being downtown.

Fondren & Main · July 27, 2020

2 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

There is a longer barrel for them which makes them a rifle. I remember when everyone wanted a Krinkoff since they qualified as a pistol.

No shit? I'll have to look into this. Although, a long barrel MP5 seems like it would look as ridiculous as the PS90.

InkaUtexas · July 27, 2020

1 minute ago, Fondren & Main said:

No shit? I'll have to look into this. Although, a long barrel MP5 seems like it would look as ridiculous as the PS90.

Was developed to get around not being able to carry them. They are fun, but I still prefer my M1 carbine.

Pibald · July 27, 2020

5 hours ago, Paco said:

5 hours ago, BradInATX said:

Please refrain from commenting while we determine whether or not there was an aggressive honk involved. Thank you.

My factory model has a standard, passive-aggressive honk. The dealership said the aggressive honk was unavailable.

ztejas · July 27, 2020

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.

Here's an interesting contrast for us to think about. Remember back in the early days of the George Floyd protests, and there were hysterical posts/warnings about "stacks of bricks" and things like that being staged, with the implication/conclusion being that they were WEAPONS, to be used by agitators up to no good?

Again, we saw a huge freakout because WEAPONS (bricks) were being staged in protest areas. That's what the entire freakout was about -- "look at these weapons, staged for use."

But when WEAPONS (guns) are being openly carried by protesters all around -- BLM protests, "reopen America" protests -- well, that's GOOD. The right to keep and bear arms and all that. Nevermind that "arms" doesn't = guns, and only guns. "Arms" just means "weapons." So, we might as well see protesters marching around with buckets full of bricks -- those are arms, what's the big deal?

We have a problem with how casual we are about people showing up at supposedly peaceful protests with weapons -- either intended to actually foment and cause violence and damage, or displayed in a way to intimidate and escalate confrontations that might occur. Again, when you show up with a weapon in view, the chances of weapons being used goes up dramatically. And as a member of the public, it detracts like hell from your message. I felt that way at the "reopen" protests where the mob with guns swarmed the statehouse, I feel that way seeing BLM protesters marching around with guns. It doesn't invite a conversation in any way -- it merely presents the binary choice of confrontation/no confrontation, and the day is a success if nobody gets shot.

We're not a smart people.

Yep. You know our country is fucked when Portland-solidarity and BLM protesters are defending a straight white male's right to brandish an assault rifle in a crowded public space.

Edited July 27, 2020 by ztejas

Cheeseweasel · July 27, 2020

That man? Albert Einstein.

SwanderedTalent · July 27, 2020

3 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I'm gonna share a derail story right here, as it one of three that happened to me recently.

About two weeks ago, I was driving to go pick up a trailer for towing my 4 wheeler. I was on a time frame as I had to get to locations before closing. Nothing urgent, but a time based agenda.

I came around a corner and at the top of a hill was a 90s model Corvette mostly in the road, as there was nearly zero shoulder. I slowed down, turned on my hazards and asked the 70+ man at the back of the car if he needed help. He asked me if I would mind taking a jug to go get him a gallon of gas that he would pay for. I invited him in my truck and told him I would take him. He had a Korea Marine War Veteran hat on. He never brought it up, and I was okay with that reality. Turns out his actually lives in the town of 900 that I live in. The Corvette was basically his dream car and he'd saved up forever to buy it. The gas indicator was apparently broken. We got the gas and returned. I parked behind him and turned on my hazards while he got out to fuel up. He tried offering me money, but I refused. Just as he was about to start a county Sheriff car drove past, turned around and turned on its lights behind me. I explained the situation breifly, noted I would leave to reduce the cluster and pulled off as he came up to keep stay behind the Vette.

I felt a lot better about leaving the man and his car with the police officer behind him. I made it to my destinations on time. It was really late when I got home.

All this occurred as I committed to myself that morning to be better. Just a little. Be kind.

I'm gonna do the same tomorrow morning, because I can and should.

Feel absolutely free to flame or neg away. I'm good with it, but please, at some point in the next few days try to be just a little better, and I too will try.

/thread derail

so that's what became of Rocko

52-80 · July 27, 2020

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Not everything life has good guys and bad guys. Not everything fits the fucking narrative.

God damnit.

A man died and a suffering woman lost her husband for nothing. No one learned shit. No one won. EVERYONE FUCKING LOST

it wasnt for nothing. his name hashtag trended on twitter for atleast 2 days.

ztejas · July 27, 2020

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Not everything life has good guys and bad guys. Not everything fits the fucking narrative.

God damnit.

A man died and a suffering woman lost her husband for nothing. No one learned shit. No one won. EVERYONE FUCKING LOST

And someone took a life. That shit will fuck you up whether he gets convicted of anything or not (or whether he should have fired or not).

Pimphand · July 27, 2020

Wally Pryor · July 27, 2020

4 hours ago, Nicole44 said:

It actually helps the one person that needs the votes. The longer this goes on.

It won't make any difference, at all. There's been plenty of insanity for plenty of years, and it hasn't changed a thing.

In fact, I'm guessing you'll see the incumbents win by bigger margins than they ever have. Those that have challengers, at least.

Wally Pryor · July 27, 2020

2 hours ago, Deej said:

That one could really go either way. I blame it on years of Leslie being downtown.

And so were the days when our biggest concern downtown was whether we should approve his statue and, if so, where to place it.

Deej · July 27, 2020

Wait...did the police murder him?

JimmyJames · July 27, 2020

4 hours ago, Armybrat said:

Nope, The second shooter (at the car) had a concealed handgun and an LTC.
Not that a lot of people, including criminals, think they need government permission to carry anyway.

in times like these, many more people feel the need to carry protection, especially when the cops are being told to stand down in some places. Gun sales this year are an obvious indicator.

Maybe I’m missing your point but my complaint was directed at open carry, not concealed carry.

4th and 5 · July 27, 2020

8 hours ago, MirrOlure said:

You are too fucking obtuse to “analyze the facts of the case.” In any criminal homicide case in this scenario, you fail to grasp that it’s the driver who is presumed innocent, not the armed protester, and it is HIS actions which must be proven to be criminal, beyond any reasonable doubt. Not the other way around.

And someone more seasoned in criminal law than I can correct me, but I THINK his burden of proof on justification is mere “reasonableness.”

Dumbass giving an interview earlier that evening flippantly marginalizing is carrying an assault rifle, coupled with that nano-second snapshot of him with the gun in low ready while he and dozens swarmed the car.....yeah, barring some as of yet unknown evidence of intent or extreme negligence by the driver....and aside from political grandstanding, this “case” doesn’t ever get past step 1.

It is the STATE'S burden to DISPROVE, beyond a reasonable doubt, the justification of self defense or defense of another.

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.

(a) a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

=======

FYI for the provocation issue, see TPC 9.31(b)

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or

(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

Provoking the difficulty means…..

“(1)....defendant did some act or used some words which provoked the attack on him, (2) that such act or words were reasonably calculated to provoke the attack, and (3) that the act was done or the words were used for the purpose and with the intent that the defendant would have a pretext for inflicting harm upon the other .” Smith v State, 965 S.W.2d 509, 513 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998)

Edited July 27, 2020 by 4th and 5

Somnio · July 27, 2020

3 hours ago, 3adays said:

Here is a picture of another member of the protestors security team.

Flip flops are not optimal in a combat situation.

Hate · July 28, 2020

2 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

I'm gonna share a derail story right here, as it one of three that happened to me recently.

About two weeks ago, I was driving to go pick up a trailer for towing my 4 wheeler. I was on a time frame as I had to get to locations before closing. Nothing urgent, but a time based agenda.

I came around a corner and at the top of a hill was a 90s model Corvette mostly in the road, as there was nearly zero shoulder. I slowed down, turned on my hazards and asked the 70+ man at the back of the car if he needed help. He asked me if I would mind taking a jug to go get him a gallon of gas that he would pay for. I invited him in my truck and told him I would take him. He had a Korea Marine War Veteran hat on. He never brought it up, and I was okay with that reality. Turns out his actually lives in the town of 900 that I live in. The Corvette was basically his dream car and he'd saved up forever to buy it. The gas indicator was apparently broken. We got the gas and returned. I parked behind him and turned on my hazards while he got out to fuel up. He tried offering me money, but I refused. Just as he was about to start a county Sheriff car drove past, turned around and turned on its lights behind me. I explained the situation breifly, noted I would leave to reduce the cluster and pulled off as he came up to keep stay behind the Vette.

I felt a lot better about leaving the man and his car with the police officer behind him. I made it to my destinations on time. It was really late when I got home.

All this occurred as I committed to myself that morning to be better. Just a little. Be kind.

I'm gonna do the same tomorrow morning, because I can and should.

Feel absolutely free to flame or neg away. I'm good with it, but please, at some point in the next few days try to be just a little better, and I too will try.

/thread derail

Way to go. The cops probably shot him after you left /Surly

Deej · July 28, 2020

3 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

I'm gonna share a derail story right here, as it one of three that happened to me recently.

About two weeks ago, I was driving to go pick up a trailer for towing my 4 wheeler. I was on a time frame as I had to get to locations before closing. Nothing urgent, but a time based agenda.

I came around a corner and at the top of a hill was a 90s model Corvette mostly in the road, as there was nearly zero shoulder. I slowed down, turned on my hazards and asked the 70+ man at the back of the car if he needed help. He asked me if I would mind taking a jug to go get him a gallon of gas that he would pay for. I invited him in my truck and told him I would take him. He had a Korea Marine War Veteran hat on. He never brought it up, and I was okay with that reality. Turns out his actually lives in the town of 900 that I live in. The Corvette was basically his dream car and he'd saved up forever to buy it. The gas indicator was apparently broken. We got the gas and returned. I parked behind him and turned on my hazards while he got out to fuel up. He tried offering me money, but I refused. Just as he was about to start a county Sheriff car drove past, turned around and turned on its lights behind me. I explained the situation breifly, noted I would leave to reduce the cluster and pulled off as he came up to keep stay behind the Vette.

I felt a lot better about leaving the man and his car with the police officer behind him. I made it to my destinations on time. It was really late when I got home.

All this occurred as I committed to myself that morning to be better. Just a little. Be kind.

I'm gonna do the same tomorrow morning, because I can and should.

Feel absolutely free to flame or neg away. I'm good with it, but please, at some point in the next few days try to be just a little better, and I too will try.

/thread derail

"After parking my Corvette on the side on the road on my way to Kyle Field (the lot was full, because Texas A&M fans fill their stadium to capacity for even the most pointless games), the friendliest A&M fan stopped to see if everything was OK. I told him I was just trying to find my way to the stadium, but he insisted on driving me to the nearest gas station to get enough gas to top off my car for the drive home. Don't ever let anyone tell you that Texas A&M doesn't have the greatest fans ever."

Edited July 28, 2020 by Deej

Steel Shank · July 28, 2020

4 hours ago, 3adays said:

Here is a picture of another member of the protestors security team.

You know, this is a wacky ol' world, because this person is in someone's "wheelhouse".

All I got.

Deej · July 28, 2020

5 minutes ago, Steel Shank said:

this person is in someone's "wheelhouse".

NowThis?

Steel Shank · July 28, 2020

1 minute ago, Deej said:

NowThis?

That very well could be. NTTAWWT.

Brothahorn · July 28, 2020

4 hours ago, 3adays said:

Here is a picture of another member of the protestors security team.

He's got the shotgun, I want for my birthday.

RollLeft · July 28, 2020

26 minutes ago, Brothahorn said:

He's got the shotgun, I want for my birthday.

So that's what you call it, eh?

Pato del Muerto · July 28, 2020

4 hours ago, Pibald said:

My factory model has a standard, passive-aggressive honk. The dealership said the aggressive honk was unavailable.

The dad of my high school friend had a mid 70s Lincoln towncar in the late 90s. Being the land yacht that it was, it had plenty of unused space in the engine bay around the 460. Enough space for a train horn. That was an attention getter.

Cajun · July 28, 2020

5 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.

Here's an interesting contrast for us to think about. Remember back in the early days of the George Floyd protests, and there were hysterical posts/warnings about "stacks of bricks" and things like that being staged, with the implication/conclusion being that they were WEAPONS, to be used by agitators up to no good?

Again, we saw a huge freakout because WEAPONS (bricks) were being staged in protest areas. That's what the entire freakout was about -- "look at these weapons, staged for use."

But when WEAPONS (guns) are being openly carried by protesters all around -- BLM protests, "reopen America" protests -- well, that's GOOD. The right to keep and bear arms and all that. Nevermind that "arms" doesn't = guns, and only guns. "Arms" just means "weapons." So, we might as well see protesters marching around with buckets full of bricks -- those are arms, what's the big deal?

We have a problem with how casual we are about people showing up at supposedly peaceful protests with weapons -- either intended to actually foment and cause violence and damage, or displayed in a way to intimidate and escalate confrontations that might occur. Again, when you show up with a weapon in view, the chances of weapons being used goes up dramatically. And as a member of the public, it detracts like hell from your message. I felt that way at the "reopen" protests where the mob with guns swarmed the statehouse, I feel that way seeing BLM protesters marching around with guns. It doesn't invite a conversation in any way -- it merely presents the binary choice of confrontation/no confrontation, and the day is a success if nobody gets shot.

We're not a smart people.

To your point...

This is going to increase. We are only at the foot of the mountain I'm afraid.

Edited July 28, 2020 by Cajun

Cajun · July 28, 2020

1 hour ago, Brothahorn said:

He's got the shotgun, I want for my birthday.

He?

JohnnyRage · July 28, 2020

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

If the wheels of the the shooter's cars were moving, does it automatically make it an illegal shoot? I've hear that only LEO are legally allowed to shoot out of a moving vehicle.

Firemans4Horn · July 28, 2020

6 hours ago, immamac said:

This is an incredibly bad take. What if AK-47 guy shot and killed asshole driver guy instead of the other way around? I think it's SAME SAME result. Tragic accident, totally self-defense etc etc.

I'm upset that EITHER person is deceased or even hurt. It's not that one was right or wasn't right or was within or wasn't within their rights as an American and Texas citizen. This is about the America being so fucked up that sad shit like this can happen because people aren't using their fucking brains anymore they are using guns.

Fixed it

JohnnyRage · July 28, 2020

9 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I know of no such law. I tend to doubt it as Castle Doctrine applies to ones vehicle in Texas (with certain limitations).

Seems very illogical, but it's Texas gun law so...

Edit - The most common time in which one would legally be allowed to use a firearm would be during a car jacking. Forbidding the vehicle from being in motion of any sort seems extremely illogical. Particularly given how Texas laws tend to favor protection of one's vehicle. I'll do a search or perhaps a law dog will chime in prior.

Separately from my posed question, one thing possibly about Castle Doctrine and vehicles...let's assume people were not trying to gain access to the car by either pulling on door handles or smashing through the windows. I would assume in that situation, where people are not trying to access to get you out of the vehicle or to due harm physically to you, that you don't have castle doctrine to protect damage to your vehicle. Vehicles are common, repairable, and replaceable.

JohnnyRage · July 28, 2020

I have never said the driver provoked, but he did run a red light to turn off of a road with no protestors onto a road with protestors.

Does the clause about being 'recovered' include just repairing the dents on your car with your insurance or out of pocket? I have previously heard to defend property it has to be unique and irreplaceable to use deadly force. But I could be wrong.

BradInATX · July 28, 2020

I don't know if this is the right thread for it, but there's so much of this happening lately that I guess it could go anywhere. Man, the trivialization of brandishing firearms, pointing them indiscrimately, using them as intimidation tools, etc. is just terrifying. I don't recall this phenomenon or anything like it in my lifetime. This may be political and if so, so be it, ban me or whatever; but I don't think anyone will really disagree or take offense. The "side" that traditionally has been anti-gun seems to be taking up arms more and more. And I think that's making the traditional pro-gun side even more entrenched and on edge, because normally they were the ones with guns. And now both sides are starting to get into this bunker warfare mentality. Figuratively, for now. There are a lot of folks on every side that have no business owning firearms let alone walking around with them in public. And they're out in public, normalizing it and emboldening the morons from all walks of life and political belief sets.

This is just a bad situation all around. I'm not saying that there's going to be some sort of civil war or anything like that. But it feels like we're headed to society where a lot more people are openly armed, and it turns into a 'situation where people in conflict are going to be looking to be the first one to obtain legal cover to fire (threatened), because they're going to feel like if they don't, the other guy will. Everyone is going to be armed and on edge for threats. I think you saw that with what happened in Austin. Protesters on edge, swarm the car. Guy in the car on edge, shoots AK47 guy. Bad times.

This seems like a bit of a death spiral to me. No idea what the answer is.

Edited July 28, 2020 by BradInATX

Cajun · July 28, 2020

Spot on.

"Foot of the mountain"

Our cities are now incubators for deadly interactions.

Edited July 28, 2020 by Cajun

ztejas · July 28, 2020

24 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I don't know if this is the right thread for it, but there's so much of this happening lately that I guess it could go anywhere. Man, the trivialization of brandishing firearms, pointing them indiscrimately, using them as intimidation tools, etc. is just terrifying. I don't recall this phenomenon or anything like it in my lifetime. This may be political and if so, so be it, ban me or whatever; but I don't think anyone will really disagree or take offense. The "side" that traditionally has been anti-gun seems to be taking up arms more and more. And I think that's making the traditional pro-gun side even more entrenched and on edge, because normally they were the ones with guns. And now both sides are starting to get into this bunker warfare mentality. Figuratively, for now. There are a lot of folks on every side that have no business owning firearms let alone walking around with them in public. And they're out in public, normalizing it and emboldening the morons from all walks of life and political belief sets.

This is just a bad situation all around. I'm not saying that there's going to be some sort of civil war or anything like that. But it feels like we're headed to society where a lot more people are openly armed, and it turns into a 'situation where people in conflict are going to be looking to be the first one to obtain legal cover to fire (threatened), because they're going to feel like if they don't, the other guy will. Everyone is going to be armed and on edge for threats. I think you saw that with what happened in Austin. Protesters on edge, swarm the car. Guy in the car on edge, shoots AK47 guy. Bad times.

This seems like a bit of a death spiral to me. No idea what the answer is.

It's actual insanity. I already posted upthread about the ridiculous political oxymorons we're seeing so I won't just copy paste something I already said, but I will expound on it.

I'm not a gun nut, I've never owned a gun, and I don't really see the immediate need for most Americans to own guns, but I would die to protect the 2nd amendment and if any of you were sitting across from me I would have no problem telling you that with a straight face. The fact that BOTH the far right and far left are now making a mockery of gun ownership and giving legislators tangible ammunition (no pun intended) to keep chipping away at gun rights is just... bizarre. And it concerns me. I'm not trying to get any more political so I'll leave it at that. It's bizarre. And it's concerning.

bad_teammate · July 28, 2020

Looks like the dead man's gun was pointed at the ground when he was killed.

Something that really fucking sucks is that we absolutely cannot trust the police or justice system to adjudicate this fairly. If we could, then shit wouldn't be so fucked up. (official sociological terminology)

Sign In

Shooting at Austin protest tonight, 1 dead

Recommended Posts

Longhorn 145

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Larry T. Spider

hayden_horn

immamac

Posted Images

Judge Roybeanbag 11819

Link to comment

Share on other sites

demos 3003

Link to comment

Share on other sites

GHOSTUSER 361

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Longhorn 145

Link to comment

Share on other sites

dcar00 14210

Link to comment

Share on other sites

immamac 42857

Link to comment

Share on other sites

dcar00 14210

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bad_teammate 13204

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Rougarou 594

Link to comment

Share on other sites

3adays 454

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Brisketexan 105151

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Wally Pryor 5261

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Deej 76800

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Rougarou 594

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Brisketexan 105151

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Deej 76800

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Fondren & Main 6718

Link to comment

Share on other sites

InkaUtexas 25951

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Pibald 18

Link to comment

Share on other sites

ztejas 43455

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Cheeseweasel 26438

Link to comment

Share on other sites

SwanderedTalent 5761

Link to comment