Shooting at Austin protest tonight, 1 dead

[huge 3793]

Man I am terrible at picking out the details on these protest phone videos. L

[Cajun 11705]

There's nothing definitive one way or the other about that video.

Sorry Chad.

Edited July 28, 2020 by Cajun

[ztejas 43454]

I think this is the best frame. I screenshotted the video and cropped it. This is right as the first shot is fired.

So sure, I guess his gun is pointed "at the ground". He's also advancing towards the driver with his finger on the trigger of an AK-47. Did the driver need to shoot? Probably not. Did Garrett have it coming?

[Helobious 9454]

Honest question: is there anything illegal about what Foster did, given he seemingly never pointed the gun at anyone? Are we not an open carry state? Driver’s best bet if he ever gets charged would probably be to claim that he heard Foster verbalize a threat. 
 

Sidenote: It sure would be kind of nice if I could see someone openly carrying a rifle out in public and automatically know that they shouldn’t be doing that & they’re a threat, instead of having to guess. 

[ztejas 43454]

45 minutes ago, Helobious said:

Honest question: is there anything illegal about what Foster did, given he seemingly never pointed the gun at anyone?

Well it's not for us to decide whether he did anything illegal or not. Assault depends on factors that aren't easily discernable from any video we've seen.

But yeah, it could fall under aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Which is very illegal.

[justhookit 4191]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

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)

There is no police report, or any witness that has come forward that anyone was run over. Not just not run over, but nobody hit by a car.

If this was a murder it was an extremely bizarre attempt. The driver could have “ran the red light” and gone straight possibly injuring or killing many more people. But yes he turned and then randomly shot the guy that was carrying the assault rifle. I have no idea what happened. But considering the climate we are in I have a lot of faith in the police and judicial system to get this one right. 

[FartingMonk 3606]

Look everyone is out to blame the driver for it and everyone is out to blame the victim for walking up.  In this fucked up place we call America right now I don't blame the driver at all.  He was probably caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.  He sees an angry mob charge him because angry mob thinks driver tried to purposely run him over.  Guy with gun rushes to the front and driver is thinking he is about to get shot so he shoots first.  Don't blame either of them.  Blame the media for stoking the fear.  It is just what America has devolved into.  Why do you think people are buying guns at such a high clip?  It's because everyone is fucking scared

[JohnnyRage 1617]

@BurntEyes I've been more offering counterpoints to a few sweeping statements of fact and generally when use of deadly force is legal. And that's on me, this isn't necessarily the right thread for that. I haven't been hyper focused on this case because so much is still unknown and it's too hard to glean information from dark grainy videos. But I've never defended either of the shooters nor the open carry protestor.

[Trey3216 15346]

7 hours ago, ztejas said:

I think this is the best frame. I screenshotted the video and cropped it. This is right as the first shot is fired.

So sure, I guess his gun is pointed "at the ground". He's also advancing towards the driver with his finger on the trigger of an AK-47. Did the driver need to shoot? Probably not. Did Garrett have it coming?

The way he his holding the rifle, it would be pointed in the same angle as his forearm and 2+ feet closer to the car.  So yes, it’s “pointed at the ground” but he’s close enough to the car that it’s pointed at the middle of the driver’s side door, and he’s got his finger on the trigger.  

[Armybrat 40850]

5 hours ago, FartingMonk said:

Don't blame either of them.  Blame the media for stoking the fear.  It is just what America has devolved into.  Why do you think people are buying guns at such a high clip?  It's because everyone is fucking scared

Anyone who thinks the media isn’t a massive part of the problem has a problem themselves.

Every newsroom person in America has been in a perpetual state of multiple orgasms since the Covid crisis began. It’s like Jim Spencer on steroids & ecstasy when a cold front meets a warm front.

[Bill Brasky 1449]

On 7/26/2020 at 11:42 PM, Enchubben said:

That’s fucked up man, too soon. Hopefully she has friends or family to give her a hand.

I hear they are doing a benefit concert for her.   At Stubb's.  

[Pam Cummings 9644]

17 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 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.

I mean, it sounds like we agree on my bad take then. Either person could have killed the other and had a good argument for self defense. It's literally the wild west.

Edited July 28, 2020 by Pam Cummings

[Homercles 10205]

27 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

Anyone who thinks the media isn’t a massive part of the problem has a problem themselves.

Every newsroom person in America has been in a perpetual state of multiple orgasms since the Covid crisis began. It’s like Jim Spencer on steroids & ecstasy when a cold front meets a warm front.

Yeah and it’s kinda their job, but it’s also why I don’t watch cable news...NPR in the car, a broad selection of viewpoints online and when I need a phalanx of drunk lawyers I come here (see: Greg Kelley thread).  Sadly too many people don’t think when it comes to news, and drive the market for nonstop ‘breaking news’ with perpetual sensationalist outrage generation (see: Fox News and others).  Still though there’s a lot of ‘mainstream news is the enemy’ blanket statements which I don’t think is always fair, you have to also blame the people who take everything they hear as fact. 

[smuggs 9353]

"Phalanx of Drunk Lawyers" is a great band name.

[B00M 6416]

14 pages I'm not gonna read but was there some reason the driver couldn't reverse or turn around? 0% chance I'm driving anywhere near a crowd in a street, even if it means going the wrong way very slowly on a 1-way road. Part of being a responsible gun owner and protecting your right to defend yourself is doing everything you can to avoid needing to. I doubt that makes him guilty of a crime, but I think he's a dumbass that shouldn't own firearms. 

[Pam Cummings 9644]

48 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

Anyone who thinks the media isn’t a massive part of the problem has a problem themselves.

Every newsroom person in America has been in a perpetual state of multiple orgasms since the Covid crisis began. It’s like Jim Spencer on steroids & ecstasy when a cold front meets a warm front.

Well, yeah. Ratings!

 

I think news media that makes money through advertising needs to go, or be treated as not reliable. I don't know how you unfuck that chicken though.

[Paco 1934]

I was taught from an early age by my dad and grandfathers to respect firearms, learn and always abide by the safety rules, etc. Of course one of the unwritten rules was don't be around idiots with guns. Of course I didn't listen and joined the Marines anyway. Yep, you guessed it, the closest I've ever been to being shot was by another Marine.

Anyway, this seems like a case of being around a bunch of idiots with guns.

[Captainant 27676]

4 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

Well, yeah. Ratings!

 

I think news media that makes money through advertising needs to go, or be treated as not reliable. I don't know how you unfuck that chicken though.

Take the discussion to another board (unfortunately), and reinstate the fairness doctrine is as good a starting point as any

[AUS-97HORN 11765]

3 minutes ago, B00M said:

14 pages I'm not gonna read but was there some reason the driver couldn't reverse or turn around? 0% chance I'm driving anywhere near a crowd in a street, even if it means going the wrong way very slowly on a 1-way road. Part of being a responsible gun owner and protecting your right to defend yourself is doing everything you can to avoid needing to. I doubt that makes him guilty of a crime, but I think he's a dumbass that shouldn't own firearms. 

yep just jump on into a 14 page shitfest of a thread, dont read a god damned thing, and then ask pretty much the same question that was asked about 20 times on page 2 & 3.

protip.

either read the fucking thread, or dont, but dont fucking post on the thread without having read it, say you didnt bother reading it, then ask a basic question that was cleared up pretty early on.

[BradInATX 9208]

8 minutes ago, B00M said:

I doubt that makes him guilty of a crime, but I think he's a dumbass that shouldn't own firearms. 

Yeah, agreed. and I think you can probably say this about both the shooter and the shootee. 

Which presents sort of a philosophical question, IMO. It ties in to my longer-winded post above. Do we find ourselves in a country where one man can shoot another man and the end result is neither of those two men committed a crime or were in the act of committing one? That seems like we've got some holes in our game, in terms of law. I can't imagine a society where two dumbasses getting into a confrontation, one killing the other, but neither having committed a crime to be a healthy thing at all. That's disastrous. What am I missing? I don't know how you fix it and I'm not proposing any sort of solution, just commenting that it's jacked up.

Edited July 28, 2020 by BradInATX

[Enchubben 5510]

Just now, BradInATX said:

Yeah, agreed. and I think you can probably say this about both the shooter and the shootee. 

Which presents sort of a philosophical question, IMO. It ties in to my longer-winded post above. Do we find ourselves in a country where one man can shoot another man and the end result is neither of those two men committed a crime or were in the act of committing one? That seems like we've got some holes in our game, in terms of law. I can't imagine a society where two dumbasses getting into a confrontation, one killing the other, but neither having committed a crime to be a healthy thing at all. That's disastrous. What am I missing?

[BradInATX 9208]

Just now, Enchubben said:

Yeah I mean to some extent if you roll into a place where there's 100% going to be conflict and tension and you're strapped (like both guys in Austin), you might as well be showing up to a duel. You know damned well that you could get got. Or you should. 

But part of society's job is to protect people from their own stupidity at times. People running around capping each other without consequence isn't healthy.

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

14 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

I knew it was coming. Had to.

I was hoping to get one of those cool POPULAR POST flags on one of mine!!!!!!!

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

7 hours ago, Helobious said:

Honest question: is there anything illegal about what Foster did, given he seemingly never pointed the gun at anyone? Are we not an open carry state? Driver’s best bet if he ever gets charged would probably be to claim that he heard Foster verbalize a threat. 

Something something furtive movement. 

I live by a simple rule, don't start no shit, won't be no shit. 

Whether or not you are "legally within your rights to approach a vehicle with your 2A protected AK" is meaningless when your mother is crying at your funeral.

 

[Cajun 11705]

38 minutes ago, Homercles said:

Yeah and it’s kinda their job, but it’s also why I don’t watch cable news...NPR in the car, a broad selection of viewpoints online and when I need a phalanx of drunk lawyers I come here (see: Greg Kelley thread).  Sadly too many people don’t think when it comes to news, and drive the market for nonstop ‘breaking news’ with perpetual sensationalist outrage generation (see: Fox News and others).  Still though there’s a lot of ‘mainstream news is the enemy’ blanket statements which I don’t think is always fair, you have to also blame the people who take everything they hear as fact. 

Useful idiots abound.

All sides.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

35 minutes ago, smuggs said:

"Phalanx of Drunk Lawyers" is a great band name.

I think that was Rush's last album.

[B00M 6416]

11 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

yep just jump on into a 14 page shitfest of a thread, dont read a god damned thing, and then ask pretty much the same question that was asked about 20 times on page 2 & 3.

protip.

either read the fucking thread, or dont, but dont fucking post on the thread without having read it, say you didnt bother reading it, then ask a basic question that was cleared up pretty early on.

Thanks, found the video showing him turn right into the crowd on page 3. Regardless of the color of the light, it's damning to the point I don't see how anyone can defend him. He drove in so quickly that reversing was impossible. At that point you gotta kill your engine, turn on your dome light, put your hands up and start apologizing to people... Unless you wanted to create this dangerous situation. Then you're not interested in admitting fault, and ready to defend yourself.

[Neonmoon 38129]

6 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

I am confused about what exactly you're trying to determine.

If it is whether or not the driver could shoot it's simple. Two questions.

1) Did he reasonably believe his life was in danger? Based on what I have seen, and I am willing to guess for prosecutors the answer is yes. I think importantly, a jury in Texas would like include at least one juror that would as well. If so... He can defend himself. Side note- pointed at the ground or at his head, it is still threat of force. 

2) Did the driver do anything to provoke the person he shot prior to that person showing threat of force? Threat of force really isn't even debatable in the legal definition to my reading. Approaching someone (whether you find it aggressive or not) he may well have and it would be very reasonable if that person is carrying a firearm at low ready while approaching. That the gun was low ready while he approached makes it threat of force alone pretty easy in my reading of the law. So was he provoked?

The specific intentions or motivations for the threat of force is irrelevant unless provoked.

Not sure that's what you're asking about. If I am way off track let me know 

If my legal readings are errant, I'm more than happy to be corrected by law dogs more in tune than me.

Additional evidence may well surface that changes everything. That's the primary item still unknown for sure.

Did the driver provoke the dead BLM protestor? I am not convinced the video shows that he did beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think 12 jurors in Texas would be either. Though, again, there may be a stone unturned that changes everything. This is why I keep stating, based on the current evidence over and over.

 

I agree with you about the two questions. I disagree with your conclusions based on the current evidence and current laws. Let me explain. (I swear, I'm not trying to be a dick, I really just want to debate the evidence and law)

1) Did he reasonably believe his life was in danger? 

This is an important question. I do believe the biggest difference in our conclusions is I believe there is a difference between a barrel pointed at the ground and one pointed at the driver. Namely, if it is legal to Open Carry in the State of Texas, which it is, how can one possible do that if another citizen may legally shoot you for doing so. Even approaching another individual with a legally carried rifle pointed towards the ground is grounds for you to shoot that person, or if carrying a weapon pointed towards the ground is always considered a threat of force, then that law needs to be abolished because it's pointless. 

2) Did the driver do anything to provoke the person?

There is also another clearly critical question. Texas law states you are allowed to stand your ground with deadly force with someone is using or attempting to use unlawful force to harm you or your property, however, deadly force will not be justified if you provoke them. So provocation will be big on this one. This one will be argued extensively if there i a trial, well both points will be, but it will depend on what the jury determines is, or is not a provocation. My opinion and conclusion based on the current video & audio evidence is that a car ilegally turned from a street containing zero citizen pedestrians to a street containing multiple citizen pedestrians. The driver honks his horns loudly before he brings the vehicle to a stop. 

In my opinion, I do not believe the driver's life was in danger if a citizen using his right to open carry approaches him, and thus the second point will not come into play. If they do determine that a citizen with an open carry approaching you allows you use deadly force, then the law clearly needs revision, and they will need to examine question #2. Is driving your vehicle towards another person a provocation. Again, it is my opinion the legality of the driver using the street is irrelevant to the point of provocation. Would a reasonable citizen determine that a car being driven towards another citizen a provocation?

I think there will be many nuances to this case, and large amount will depend on testimony and evidence that is not available yet. 

[Wally Pryor 5261]

14 hours ago, Deej said:

Wait...did the police murder him?

Of course they did.  The cops and first responders who administered first aid didn't get to the scene fast enough.  

As the sign says, Garrett is a hero.  By the end of August our council will make sure we're driving Foster Avenue straight up to the Capitol.   

[AUS-97HORN 11765]

13 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I agree with you about the two questions. I disagree with your conclusions based on the current evidence and current laws. Let me explain. (I swear, I'm not trying to be a dick, I really just want to debate the evidence and law)

1) Did he reasonably believe his life was in danger? 

This is an important question. I do believe the biggest difference in our conclusions is I believe there is a difference between a barrel pointed at the ground and one pointed at the driver. Namely, if it is legal to Open Carry in the State of Texas, which it is, how can one possible do that if another citizen may legally shoot you for doing so. Even approaching another individual with a legally carried rifle pointed towards the ground is grounds for you to shoot that person, or if carrying a weapon pointed towards the ground is always considered a threat of force, then that law needs to be abolished because it's pointless.

and im not trying to be a dick.

its dark, you just fucked up, and took a turn you shouldnt have (and lets just say that you as the driver are both an asshole and an impatient asshole), you get swarmed by a lot of people yelling at you... you can no longer move forward or backward without hurting people.... and the biggest fucker in the bunch who has a weapon in both hands (doesnt matter that the gun is pointed down it literally takes less than a quarter second to bring that from low ready to trigger pull) comes not just running at the car- he comes running directly for the drivers door. 

assuming the driver being an asshole doesnt mean he legally was trying to instigate a confrontation,  any rational person is going to suddenly fear for their life.     Im sorry thats the crux of this whole situation.        

 

Now, as others have pointed out, the  driver may have very well have purposely instigated this situation, if so, hes guilty and will most likely be convicted.  But thats not the question you asked.

 

you asked was his life in danger and considering hes surrounded by yelling people who may be pounding on your car, you cant go anywhere and you clearly see one guy with a very large weapon in a ready to use situation, that would cause most reasonable people to think "oh fuck, i just drove into some sort of shit"

 

 

 

Edited July 28, 2020 by AUS-97HORN

[CHEF DIESEL 126]

Growing up I used to hear this phrase all the time, "Don't play in the street."

[Neonmoon 38129]

2 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

and im not trying to be a dick.

its dark, you just fucked up, and took a turn you shouldnt have (and lets just say that you as the driver are both an asshole and an impatient asshole), you get swarmed by a lot of people yelling at you... you can no longer move forward or backward without hurting people.... and the biggest fucker in the bunch who has a weapon in both hands (doesnt matter that the gun is pointed down it literally takes less than a quarter second to bring that from low ready to trigger pull) comes not just running at the car- he comes running directly for the drivers door. 

assuming the driver being an asshole doesnt mean he legally was trying to instigate a confrontation,  any rational person is going to suddenly fear for their life.     Im sorry thats the crux of this whole situation.        

 

Now, as others have pointed out, the  driver may have very well have purposely instigated this situation, if so, hes guilty and will most likely be convicted.  But thats not the question you asked.

 

you asked was his life in danger and considering hes surrounded by yelling people who may be pounding on your car, you cant go anywhere and you clearly see one guy with a very large weapon in a ready to use situation, that would cause most reasonable people to think "oh fuck, i just drove into some sort of shit"

 

 

 

I absolutely agree. I just think legally, it might be more technical than this. The driver obviously will argue self-defense. He will have to state a case of his life being in danger. Were people surrounding his car, banging on his car, a person legally carrying a weapon enough to prove his life was in danger? The state will have to disapprove his life was in danger. If the state or jury determine his life was in danger, then so be it.

I'm concerned about the implications of this case legally. I think this case has large implications to the application of Texas open carry law and subsequent case law. If a citizen legally may carry a rifle, and approaching another citizen with that weapon is grounds for another citizen to fear for their life, and thus is legally allowed to use deadly force, then that changes my understanding and I'm sure many people's understanding of the law. 

Is it possible to approach another citizen with an open carry weapon? How close can you get?  Can you only walk and not run? Where is the line of deadly force?

Do you see what I'm getting at? Yes, the driver turned the corner, and might of realized he got into some shit. He sees a dude with a weapon. At what point in that situation allowed him to use deadly force? I want to find that line, legally, that is. 

[BradInATX 9208]

I absolutely agree. I just think legally, it might be more technical than this. The driver obviously will argue self-defense. He will have to state a case of his life being in danger. Were people surrounding his car, banging on his car, a person legally carrying a weapon enough to prove his life was in danger? The state will have to disapprove his life was in danger. If the state or jury determine his life was in danger, then so be it.
I'm concerned about the implications of this case legally. I think this case has large implications to the application of Texas open carry law and subsequent case law. If a citizen legally may carry a rifle, and approaching another citizen with that weapon is grounds for another citizen to fear for their life, and thus is legally allowed to use deadly force, then that changes my understanding and I'm sure many people's understanding of the law. 
Is it possible to approach another citizen with an open carry weapon? How close can you get?  Can you only walk and not run? Where is the line of deadly force?
Do you see what I'm getting at? Yes, the driver turned the corner, and might of realized he got into some shit. He sees a dude with a weapon. At what point in that situation allowed him to use deadly force? I want to find that line, legally, that is. 

Great point and good questions. We are definitely testing the gray areas of gun law right now.

[Cajun 11705]

35 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

I think that was Rush's last album.

And here I thought he just did radio.

[Longhorn 145]

1 hour ago, Bill Brasky said:

I hear they are doing a benefit concert for her.   At Stubb's.  

I know this isn’t the BBQ thread, but they have the best burnt ends at Stubbs.

[Somnio 751]

16 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I absolutely agree. I just think legally, it might be more technical than this. The driver obviously will argue self-defense. He will have to state a case of his life being in danger. Were people surrounding his car, banging on his car, a person legally carrying a weapon enough to prove his life was in danger? The state will have to disapprove his life was in danger. If the state or jury determine his life was in danger, then so be it.

I'm concerned about the implications of this case legally. I think this case has large implications to the application of Texas open carry law and subsequent case law. If a citizen legally may carry a rifle, and approaching another citizen with that weapon is grounds for another citizen to fear for their life, and thus is legally allowed to use deadly force, then that changes my understanding and I'm sure many people's understanding of the law. 

Is it possible to approach another citizen with an open carry weapon? How close can you get?  Can you only walk and not run? Where is the line of deadly force?

Do you see what I'm getting at? Yes, the driver turned the corner, and might of realized he got into some shit. He sees a dude with a weapon. At what point in that situation allowed him to use deadly force? I want to find that line, legally, that is. 

Having a rifle slung over your back minding your own business versus approaching someone's car window in a chaotic situation having your rifle at low ready.

Common fucking sense.

[Neonmoon 38129]

7 minutes ago, Somnio said:

Having a rifle slung over your back minding your own business versus approaching someone's car window in a chaotic situation having your rifle at low ready.

Common fucking sense.

You're preaching to the choir my friend. I don't think anyone was using common sense or more importantly, common decency especially when it comes to treating others with respect. It is a sad situation all around. I am just trying to understand the difference legally. I've seen citizens across the United States in what I presume to be states with open carry laws carrying rifles with the barrels pointed towards the ground. I'm trying to determine where the use of deadly force is authorized. For example, if turn the corner quickly and run into a citizen carrying a rifle walking towards me, maybe jogging towards me, am I allowed to use deadly force if I fear for my life? 

 

Edited July 28, 2020 by Neonmoon

[Somnio 751]

It's pretty basic.

Is it reasonable to be driving on public roads which are in no way closed to traffic?

When turning the corner and seeing a mob of people in the traffic lanes is it reasonable to stop and honk your horn?

When the mob surrounds your car, and a masked, armed man with an assault rifle in his hands approaches your car window is it reasonable to fear for your life?

I answered yes to all of these questions.  It's a tragedy, but the shooting was justified.

[Captainant 27676]

8 minutes ago, Somnio said:

Having a rifle slung over your back minding your own business versus approaching someone's car window in a chaotic situation having your rifle at low ready.

Common fucking sense.

It is a pretty disingenuous characterization to say that the victim was simply approaching a random person's car. The victim was part of a crowd that had to avoid a ton-plus of moving steel, in my experience folks tend to react negatively and defensively to their life being threatened - purposeful or not. Was it wise to approach a car with a rifle slung in front with your hands on it? Hell no. But it's not like he was rolling up on some random dude and threatening him - the victim had just as much reason to claim self defense in their actions as the shooter did in killing the victim.

Neon raises some salient points on how open carry laws are supposed to work though, if simply approaching someone with a lawfully open carried weapon constitutes a valid threat that justifies deadly force

[Brisketexan 105146]

1 minute ago, Neonmoon said:

You're preaching to the choir my friend. I don't think anyone was using common sense or more importantly, common decency especially when it comes to treating others with respect. It is a sad situation all around. I am just trying to understand the difference legally. I've seen citizen across the united states in what I presume to be states with open carry laws carrying rifles with the barrels pointed towards the ground. I'm trying to determine where the use of deadly force is authorized. For example, if turn the corner quickly and run into a citizen carrying a rifle walking towards me, maybe jogging towards me, am I allowed to use deadly force if I fear for my life? 

 

There's a good argument, if he's carrying it at a low ready and/or has his finger on the trigger guard.  When you have your hand on the trigger guard of a weapon, you are demonstrating an imminent intent/threat to use it -- that's how that shit works.  As someone who has held a firearm literally hundreds of thousands of times, I can tell you that with certainty.  And we have now amped shit up where folks regularly walk around with rifles in that position, all the damned time.  A person has a good story if they say "I rounded the corner and he approached me with his rifle held in a threatening position with his finger on the trigger -- I had to act in a split second to protect myself."

Honestly, I think we may -- and should -- end up with it being the law, even via case law, that carrying a firearm in that manner is almost always inherently threatening, and can justify a response of deadly force.

If you want to carry your slung rifle, maybe that's okay.  But keep your fucking hands off of it unless you want me to perceive you to be an immediate threat to start shooting.

It's all fucking insane.  What's the fucking point?  All it does is amp up the tension, risk, and likelihood of bloodshed.  It makes nobody safer.  

[Somnio 751]

In response to Captain Ant...

The people were obstructing a roadway which was open to traffic.

They had no permit.  They should not have been in the roadway.  They were breaking the law.

Of course that doesn't give a driver a right to run them over.  And the driver did not.  He stopped, and honked his horn.

[Neonmoon 38129]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

There's a good argument, if he's carrying it at a low ready and/or has his finger on the trigger guard.  When you have your hand on the trigger guard of a weapon, you are demonstrating an imminent intent/threat to use it -- that's how that shit works.  As someone who has held a firearm literally hundreds of thousands of times, I can tell you that with certainty.  And we have now amped shit up where folks regularly walk around with rifles in that position, all the damned time.  A person has a good story if they say "I rounded the corner and he approached me with his rifle held in a threatening position with his finger on the trigger -- I had to act in a split second to protect myself."

Honestly, I think we may -- and should -- end up with it being the law, even via case law, that carrying a firearm in that manner is almost always inherently threatening, and can justify a response of deadly force.

If you want to carry your slung rifle, maybe that's okay.  But keep your fucking hands off of it unless you want me to perceive you to be an immediate threat to start shooting.

It's all fucking insane.  What's the fucking point?  All it does is amp up the tension, risk, and likelihood of bloodshed.  It makes nobody safer.  

This is the issue I'm trying to get at, and if there is current case law I'm not aware of, please feel free to direct me to it. In a state with open carry, what position of the weapon or the position of your hands on the weapon, or how you approach another citizen is threatening vs. non-threatening? Has that been decided already? I know some people in this thread believe it is clear as day and a shut and dry case as to the definition of threat in the way one carries their weapon, but I don't know if it has been determined legally in Texas. Has it?

If we are allowing people to open carry, and at the same time, allowing others to use deadly force when they are threatened, I think it is very prudent to determine what constitutes a threat in the application of open carry. Don't you agree?

Edited July 28, 2020 by Neonmoon

[Enchubben 5510]

22 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If you want to carry your slung rifle, maybe that's okay.  But keep your fucking hands off of it unless you want me to perceive you to be an immediate threat to start shooting.

This seems like a good rule and commonsense, so it will never happen.

Holy shit! we agree on something. 2020 is a motherfucker; pigs to fly soon.

[Brisketexan 105146]

8 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

This is the issue I'm trying to get at, and if there is current case law I'm not aware of, please feel free to direct me to it. In a state with open carry, what position of the weapon or the position of your hands on the weapon, or how you approach another citizen is threatening vs. non-threatening? Has that been decided already? I know some people in this thread believe it is clear as day and a shut and dry case as to the definition of threat in the way one carries their weapon, but I don't know if it has been determined legally in Texas. Has it?

If we are allowing people to open carry, and at the same time, allowing others to use deadly force when they are threatened, I think it is very prudent to determine what constitutes a threat in the application of open carry. Don't you agree?

I'm not aware of any good case law on the exact issue.  That's probably because, for most of our recent history, PEOPLE HAVEN'T BEEN RIPSHIT CRAZY/STUPID ENOUGH TO WALK AROUND TENSE SITUATIONS WITH A LONG GUN AT A LOW READY.  Historically, it was a pretty unusual thing to do -- yes, it happened occasionally, but not with the casual, frequent nature that it does today.  We will be getting more cases like the Austin shooting, and one of them will develop in a way to develop some case law.  

[Wally Pryor 5261]

Like I've said, it's maniacal lunacy that Adler and the city council have given free rein of the streets, at all times of the the day, to do what you want  - protest, dance, walk, run, meditate, or whatever the fuck you want to do.  There are no permits being required.  Stand down, cops.   Want to do a spontaneous march up Congress / Foster Avenue?  Sure, why not.   

Cars and people do not fucking mix.   Especially charged up people carrying assault rifles and drivers who, shockingly, on a busy Saturday night may want to drive on the streets.  Our city has blood on its hands because they've, ludicrously, allowed open and free access of the streets to pedestrians for weeks now.  Well, it came back and bit them Saturday night.  Badly.   I know they'll figure out, ultimately, how to blame the cops for this tragedy.  But the reality is that Adler and the council can look right in the mirror on this one, if they chose to accept reality.   But that's just a pipe dream. 

Edited July 28, 2020 by Wally Pryor

[BradInATX 9208]

This seems like a good rule and commonsense, so it will never happen.
Holy shit! we agree on something. 2020 is a motherfucker; pigs to fly soon.

I agree with this as well.
Dogs and cats living together.

[dcar00 14210]

25 minutes ago, Somnio said:

In response to Captain Antifa...

The people were obstructing a roadway which was open to traffic.

They had no permit.  They should not have been in the roadway.  They were breaking the law.

Of course that doesn't give a driver a right to run them over.  And the driver did not.  He stopped, and honked his horn.

In one of the videos there is actually a car moving with the people walking in the middle of congress.  its not like they weren't aware that cars were around on the very road they were walking on and its pretty obvious the street was not blocked off.

[dcar00 14210]

8 minutes ago, Wally Pryor said:

Like I've said, it's maniacal lunacy that Adler and the city council have given free rein of the streets, at all times of the the day, to do what you want  - protest, dance, walk, run, meditate, or whatever the fuck you want to do.  There are no permits being required.  Stand down, cops.   Want to do a spontaneous march up Congress / Foster Avenue?  Sure, why not.   

Cars and people do not fucking mix.   Especially charged up people carrying assault rifles and drivers who, shockingly, on a busy Saturday night may want to drive on the streets.  Our city has blood on its hands because they've, ludicrously, allowed open and free access of the streets to pedestrians for weeks now.  Well, it came back and bit them Saturday night.  Badly.   I know they'll figure out, ultimately, how to blame the cops for this tragedy.  But the reality is that Adler and the council can look right in the mirror on this one, if they chose to accept reality.   But that's just a pipe dream. 

Alder already blamed the guns. he's left the police out of it because even he can't blame this on the police.

Edited July 28, 2020 by dcar00

[mchookem 16336]

my non-political conclusion (i know others have also reached) is there are too many fucking guns just being toted around out in public by yahoos either looking for or expecting trouble. it inevitably finds some of them. and i say that as a CHL holder. 

we're literally reverting, not progressing.😕

[Wally Pryor 5261]

6 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

Alder already blamed the guns. he's left the police out of it because even he can't blame this on the police.

There's 10 other idiots running the city with him.    Just give it time.