Shooting at Austin protest tonight, 1 dead

[dcar00 14210]

2 hours ago, Pam Cummings said:

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.

Its possible but was the AK guy close to the car(almost get hit) when it turned on to congress or did he run up to the car and from where?

[Paco 1934]

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

Did you read what you just wrote?

[Dahobbs 17569]

32 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.

I don't see how the childish insult was warranted or appropriate in this forum. His post made a legit point: the individuals in the crowd could have felt threatened (and by all accounts did feel threatened) regardless of whether the driver intended it or not.  And. just because they were "breaking the law" in your view, doesn't extinguish their right to defend themselves if they feel threatened. I have no idea what the driver was thinking. I could totally imagine being in the scenario of turning down the wrong road and being terrified of the angry crowd. I could also totally imagine being terrified of the angry driver if I were in the crowd. The interplay here is interesting and complicated. 

[Texaspython 231]

41 minutes ago, Somnio said:

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.

I think it’s pretty tough to make a definitive call one way or the other with the current information.
 

I’ll say this, I’d be curious just what the driver was doing down there. Was he looking for a fight? Did he have his pistol at the ready? All relevant questions when asking whether his choice to use lethal force was reasonable and necessary.

[dcar00 14210]

I think we are close to getting our own CHAZ.  it will be lovely.  wonder what the real estate values will be in the new area.  maybe I'll look to do a tear down and rebuild.

[Neonmoon 38129]

1 minute ago, BurntEyes said:

It will comes as a shock to you but I'm very much on the progun side.

I normally oppose any laws that infringe upon the second.

That said, if, out of this particular situation we get a legislation that allows one to still carry a rifle, but slung over a shoulder only and defines carry at low ready as a Threat of Violence...

That's winning. Maybe not a big win, but something I actually support. Which, shockingly, is uncommon regarding gun laws for me.

I agree. I think some distinction needs to be made if open carry is going to continue in this state. Sadly, I fear this will not be the last time a open carry citizen will encounter a CHL or another open carry. Hopefully it won't end like this, but there needs to be clear rules of carry and engagement or non-engagement if you will. 

[Captainant 27679]

Just now, BurntEyes said:

The law is not.

It is currently an open question if the act of openly carrying a rifle, as is permitted by law, constitutes a reasonable threat of danger to a third party that justifies use of deadly force.

[Dahobbs 17569]

 

6 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

The law is not.

I'm glad you've made a determination for yourself both as judge and jury. I disagree with your legal analysis and I'm certain that I could not reach your certainty as finder of fact given the evidence currently available to me. I'm not sure why you've taken this thread/topic as personally as you have.  

Personally, I find the law interesting, as it is what I do for a living. And, I find this particular set of facts and their intersection with the law particularly interesting. 

Edited July 28, 2020 by Dahobbs

[dcar00 14210]

5 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

I think it’s pretty tough to make a definitive call one way or the other with the current information.
 

I’ll say this, I’d be curious just what the driver was doing down there. Was he looking for a fight? Did he have his pistol at the ready? All relevant questions when asking whether his choice to use lethal force was reasonable and necessary.

fair enough but you could ask the same questions about the AK guy

[justhookit 4191]

2 hours ago, 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? I don't know how you fix it and I'm not proposing any sort of solution, just commenting that it's jacked up.

At this point I’m at the point where I think well, that’s one less dumbass in the world. Sorta serious.

[Wally Pryor 5261]

8 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

I think we are close to getting our own CHAZ.  it will be lovely.  wonder what the real estate values will be in the new area.  maybe I'll look to do a tear down and rebuild.

Austin is a Seattle and Portland wannabe.  So this is next step and Gregario is probably trying to help organize it.   

I would ask that any Austin CHAZ movement consider Ben White from 35 to Lamar.   That's already an unfiltered mess with the homeless so the impact wouldn't be too bad.  Plus, the city is already providing housekeeping in this area so that would be taken care of as well. 

[BradInATX 9208]

2 minutes ago, Wally Pryor said:

Austin is a Seattle and Portland wannabe.  So this is next step and Gregario is probably trying to help organize it.   

I would ask that any Austin CHAZ movement consider Ben White from 35 to Lamar.   That's already an unfiltered mess with the homeless so the impact wouldn't be too bad.  Plus, the city is already providing housekeeping in this area so that would be taken care of as well. 

 

Why do you choose to live in a city that is obviously a bad fit for you, and in which you are a bad fit?

[Brisketexan 105152]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It is currently an open question if the act of openly carrying a rifle, as is permitted by law, constitutes a reasonable threat of danger to a third party that justifies use of deadly force.

Well, and just broadly stating "openly carrying a rifle" raises the fact that it will be all about context.  Even a slung rifle....if you walk into an elementary school with it, is going to get your ass shot by a school resource officer.

Here, we're talking about in ANY context, is carrying a rifle at a low ready, and/or with your finger on the trigger guard, a threatening act such that it justifies an act of self defense by a third party?  I think that it is so likely to be the case in any given context that it is what I would characterize as "unreasonably dangerous/unreasonable provocation."  Again, I have carried a long gun on some day or another every one of the last 45 years.  I know what it means to have a long gun at a low ready.  When I see someone in public with a gun in that position, I instinctively clinch up and my fight or flight response is on a hair trigger.  Because to me, and I think to any reasonable person, the signal that sends is "I am ready to open fire at a split-second's notice."

Think of it this way -- we've all had a conversation with a cop (get pulled over, chat at a tailgate where they are on patrol, whatever).

Conversation 1 - the cop is talking to us, his hands relaxed, maybe holding a ticket book, maybe leaning against our car window.  It's not fun, but it's not particularly frightening.

Conversation 2 -- the cop is talking to us, and has his hand firmly on the butt of his weapon, holster unsnapped, ready to pull.  That's a fucking TENSE situation, for everyone.

We have a culture that has encouraged and glorified a metric shitton of people having conversation 2 -- they engage people with their hands positioned in a way that says they may well use their weapon in the next tenth of a second.  That's fucking tense, and scary, and it has no place in a functioning society.

Which raises the conclusion that we don't have a functioning society.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

What's the fucking point? 

LARPers gonna LARP.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

35 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

Alder already blamed the guns.

I'm so glad my guns aren't involved in this. I guess I raised them right.

[Wally Pryor 5261]

9 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

Why do you choose to live in a city that is obviously a bad fit for you, and in which you are a bad fit?

Tough call that's been contemplated.  But as often discussed by others on the subject, when you have kids deeply entrenched in school, sports, friends and activities, it complicates matters.   Once they're done, we'll move.  

I've been here all my life and don't lament about the 'ol Austin thing.  I do miss common sense and a moderate (or balanced) approach to things when running the city.  That's probably something most desire in any place they live, I guess.   

[ztejas 43464]

Something I haven't seen discussed yet that a potential case could hinge on - how did they find the AK? I suppose someone could have gotten to it before the first responders, but was the safety on? Was it chambered? 

[sheeeit 129]

1 hour 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. 

I get your point and agree to some extent that it is a fine line.  However, imo only, the caveat is his finger on the trigger and him approaching the car.  Lets take a situation where someone is sitting in their car and, for whatever reason, the car can't move.  If some stranger is approaching with their finger on the trigger of their rifle, I would never fault the driver of the car for shooting them.  However, if the gun/rifle were holstered or slung over their back, the situation would be different.  But when you put your finger on the trigger, there is no grey area imo.  

[DaggerHorns 3085]

Just for clarification. The first 5 shots were from the vehicle? And the next 3 were from a bystander? 

Also, do they know how many times Garrett was shot?

[dcar00 14210]

22 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

I'm so glad my guns aren't involved in this. I guess I raised them right.

 

[Fondren & Main 6721]

12 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Something I haven't seen discussed yet that a potential case could hinge on - how did they find the AK? I suppose someone could have gotten to it before the first responders, but was the safety on? Was it chambered? 

I’m not sure that matters.  In St. Louis, the wife of the lawyer couple was carrying a pistol that wasn’t even functional.

[Cajun 11714]

1 hour 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.  

So what you're saying is it's probably not good to have a bunch of armed people channelling this guy and interacting on a daily basis?  Because that's basically what we DO have now...

Edited July 28, 2020 by Cajun

[ztejas 43464]

3 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

I’m not sure that matters.  In St. Louis, the wife of the lawyer couple was carrying a pistol that wasn’t even functional.

I think it depends on who prosecutes the shooter if he does get prosecuted. If Foster's family goes after him the defendant will probably care if the gun was chambered and off the safety. But I ain't no big city law man. I'll put up the bat signal.

@Brisketexan

[Deej 76806]

"Excuse me, sir...do you have a round chambered and the safety off? I need to know before I shoot at you."

[Brisketexan 105152]

1 minute ago, Deej said:

"Excuse me, sir...do you have a round chambered and the safety off? I need to know before I shoot at you."

Yeah.  That's almost entirely irrelevant.  The relevant questions are going to be about what the other party reasonably believed.  You approach me with a rifle, mag clicked in, at a low ready, finger on the trigger guard, I'm going to presume you are a threat.  Maybe the mag is empty, no round chambered, it's just for show.  I don't and can't know that.

[BradInATX 9208]

29 minutes ago, Wally Pryor said:

Tough call that's been contemplated.  But as often discussed by others on the subject, when you have kids deeply entrenched in school, sports, friends and activities, it complicates matters.   Once they're done, we'll move.  

I've been here all my life and don't lament about the 'ol Austin thing.  I do miss common sense and a moderate (or balanced) approach to things when running the city.  That's probably something most desire in any place they live, I guess.   

 

Fair. Although Austin has always been pretty liberal (born and raised here myself). I guess the "style" of liberal has changed more from your Texas blue dog Dem types more to the sort of woke culture, hipster, California type. But in that sense, it seems you might take more issue with the messenger than the message. Might it do good to focus a little less on the messengers that clearly irk you and focusing on the message?

But I digress. We're moving to an exurb in two weeks ourselves, mostly to get some property but also partially because of the very changes I've mentioned; though more culturally than politically for us. I just don't like the corporatization or paying $7 for craft beers that I could drive to the brewery and get for $2 and be back to the restaurant before the server brings it out.

IMO, it just seems like a pretty stressful way to live if you're in a city like Austin and you're constantly offended and pissed off about woke culture. 

[Neonmoon 38129]

9 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I pointed out it gross detail the specific items upon which the law is pretty damn clear several times. 

I take it personally because we are at an intersection of what I believe to be the most fundamental rights, free speech/assembly and arms. 

I believe this particular incident brings those to items into conflict. 

Not only that but the larger issues crosses over into states rights as it relates to Covid.

Can they assemble without masks in large groups while carrying arms at low ready or at all? What happens when one groups expression of rights comes into direct conflict with others.

You may practice the law but I've spent a massive amount of my time and money supporting, both in actual protest and by financial support of legal entities, in pursuit of defending the 2nd. 

If our interpretations of the law very, I believe that might stem from a bias on both sides. That bias may well alter the way in which we view and interpret case law on this particular subject.

I see this as a very clear cut case.

Foster could NOT reasonably assume he was in danger from the car as he was standing next to it. Impossible at that point for him to be run over.

Foster is not afforded by law the right to draw a conclusion, within reasonable doubt, that a stopped car is a threat to people that have chosen to be in front of it.

The driver can, within reasonable doubt, come to a logical conclusion that a rifle held at low ready is a threat of force when the person approached his driver door of his own volition. 

At that point, with immediate threat to life he can defend himself.

Now, are there actions by the driver that provoked the armed man? More importantly, was there intention? 

Maybe, and if so, he doesn't have the right to shoot him.

Based on the existing evidence I am aware of, that provoke doesn't exist. Can you interpret a group illegally blocking a roadway impeding the car, who has a right of way, legally, and honks at them while stopped as provoking a Threat of Force reaction?

I don't believe beyond reasonable doubt that you can.

Perhaps you do, and that again comes to a variance in case law interpretations.

Now more things may come to light that entirely reverse my position. I'm still waiting for further evidence and everything I have written here is based upon the known facts and evidence currently sans suppositions.

Want to go down the deep deep case law rabbit hole on gun rights and self defense historically in the US and Texas? Start a thread, I'm in.

Okay, well I disagree with your opinion as it relates to the facts of the case as we currently know them specifically your opinion regarding clear cut threat as to low ready as it is not currently decided in case law and your opinion as to whether Foster perceived the car as a threat. I agree further evidence is needed and that can/will change my opinion of the facts. 

 

[Brisketexan 105152]

8 minutes ago, Cajun said:

So what you're saying is it's probably not good to have a bunch of armed people channelling this guy and interacting on a daily basis?  Because that's basically what we DO have now...

We do.

And remember how I've warned on various gun control threads for years now that if we, gun owners, want to see legislatures and Congress tell us to STFU, they're going to start to regulate the shit out of firearms, this is EXACTLY how to accomplish that goal?

Just like cops have - instead of being introspective and saying "you know, we have some institutional problems with violence, use of force, and abuse of citizens" -- chosen to double-down, go full on paramilitary badass and crack skulls while shouting "PATRIOTS BACK THE BLUE!"  That strategy works fine....right up until it utterly fails.

The gun owner community has the same issue.  The response to Sandy Hook, Marjorie Stoneman Douglas, etc.?  Triple down.  Walk around public spaces, including capitol buildings, like a rogue platoon ready to wreck shit in Fallujah.  Strut around with firearms in a manner that intimidates and threatens any sane member of society.  Eventually, society will say "fuck this shit" and take it out of gun owners' hands.

It's utterly fucking stupid and counterproductive, and perfectly "America in 2020."

[ztejas 43464]

10 minutes ago, Deej said:

"Excuse me, sir...do you have a round chambered and the safety off? I need to know before I shoot at you."

That's not the argument I'm making. I'm speaking to if the prosecutor tried to argue that Foster had no intention of escalating the situation it might help their case if the gun wasnt chambered and on safety. But I think any prosecuting argument would be shitty when you look at precedent for this type of stuff in Texas.

[ztejas 43464]

7 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Yeah doesn't matter. You rob a store with an unloaded weapon, it's still armed robbery. You don't get off with strong arm or shop lifting charges.

Oh come on...

https://yarn.co/yarn-clip/2fdbf0ba-3a80-47fd-9e25-60f15376dc08#2cyr8rzL2z.copy

(yes I'm being facetious)

[Dahobbs 17569]

34 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I pointed out it gross detail the specific items upon which the law is pretty damn clear several times. 

I take it personally because we are at an intersection of what I believe to be the most fundamental rights, free speech/assembly and arms. 

I believe this particular incident brings those to items into conflict. 

Not only that but the larger issues crosses over into states rights as it relates to Covid.

Can they assemble without masks in large groups while carrying arms at low ready or at all? What happens when one groups expression of rights comes into direct conflict with others.

You may practice the law but I've spent a massive amount of my time and money supporting, both in actual protest and by financial support of legal entities, in pursuit of defending the 2nd. 

If our interpretations of the law very, I believe that might stem from a bias on both sides. That bias may well alter the way in which we view and interpret case law on this particular subject.

I see this as a very clear cut case.

Foster could NOT reasonably assume he was in danger from the car as he was standing next to it. Impossible at that point for him to be run over.

Foster is not afforded by law the right to draw a conclusion, within reasonable doubt, that a stopped car is a threat to people that have chosen to be in front of it.

The driver can, within reasonable doubt, come to a logical conclusion that a rifle held at low ready is a threat of force when the person approached his driver door of his own volition. 

At that point, with immediate threat to life he can defend himself.

Now, are there actions by the driver that provoked the armed man? More importantly, was there intention? 

Maybe, and if so, he doesn't have the right to shoot him.

Based on the existing evidence I am aware of, that provoke doesn't exist. Can you interpret a group illegally blocking a roadway impeding the car, who has a right of way, legally, and honks at them while stopped as provoking a Threat of Force reaction?

I don't believe beyond reasonable doubt that you can.

Perhaps you do, and that again comes to a variance in case law interpretations. 

What to go down the deep deep case law rabbit hole on gun rights and self defense historically in the US and Texas? Start a thread I'm in.

(1) The 2nd amendment isn't unique among the pantheon of rights. Every right is subject to reasonable restriction. That is well settled law. And, frankly, I'm not sure what any of that has to do with this case. You can spend your time and money however you choose. 

(2) Bias as to what? I don't have a bias one way or the other as I don't know these people and I don't really know what happened. I think your conclusions on the law are wrong because you don't have an understanding of how nuanced the law can be. 

(3) Foster could reasonably believe that he was protecting himself or others from imminent bodily danger. Cars are powerful weapons, and that power doesn't cease to exist just because the car isn't moving, just like the power of a gun doesn't cease to exist just because it isn't being fired. Both of them can cause injury and death in an instant. Here, Foster could have believed the driver was going to floor the gas at any moment, causing injuries to others or turning the car on Foster. However, I'm not sure this is legally relevant to anything as Foster is dead and not being charged with a crime. 

(4) There is no law that precludes Foster from drawing the conclusion that a stopped car is a threat. I have no idea why you've inserted "reasonable doubt" into that statement or what you mean by it. See above for why a stopped car can easily still be a threat. Hell, ask any police officer whether cars they've pulled over are a threat to them. I know that answer. 

(5) I agree, the driver could have reasonable believed the man with a rifle and his finger on the trigger was a threat and believed he was protecting himself from imminent bodily danger.

(6) I also agree that driver's intentions are critical, particularly whether he intentionally provoked conflict. 

(7) I have no idea what this sentence means: "Can you interpret a group illegally blocking a roadway impeding the car, who has a right of way, legally, and honks at them while stopped as provoking a Threat of Force reaction?" The question is whether the driver intentionally threatened or attacked the people in the roadway. Based on the facts as I know them, it is possible he had that intent. I would need to hear more to get to the point of "beyond I reasonable doubt" that it was in fact his intention. I'm not prepared to say that getting to that point is impossible because I recognize more facts can and will come out. For instance,  the driver could have previously expressed anger about the protests or made comments/social medial/journal/diary entries where he indicated an intent to harm protesters.

 

 

Edited July 28, 2020 by Dahobbs

[Cajun 11714]

36 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah.  That's almost entirely irrelevant.  The relevant questions are going to be about what the other party reasonably believed.  You approach me with a rifle, mag clicked in, at a low ready, finger on the trigger guard, I'm going to presume you are a threat.  Maybe the mag is empty, no round chambered, it's just for show.  I don't and can't know that.

And then factor in that he's sitting in a car with limited visibility out of what amount sto a picture frame filled with human silhouettes, some of whom are shouting and banging on your rig.  All in the space of a few seconds.  You're at DEFCON 1 (like Garrett) and you see a dude coming at you, flashing through those silhouettes, with an AK closing distance real fast.

Shit's going down and it's not gonna be good shit.

Ain't no time for fingers on trigger guards or muzzle angles.

 

Edited July 28, 2020 by Cajun

[Captainant 27679]

3 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I've no idea how one could be considered in danger, reasonably, from a STOPPED car while standing next to it with a carbine at low ready.

Just ask these cops how they thought they were in danger with this dude in a parked car

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/06/phoenix-protest-police-shooting/

[Brisketexan 105152]

24 minutes ago, Cajun said:

And then factor in that he's sitting in a car with limited visibility out of what amount sto a picture frame filled with human silhouettes, some of whom are shouting and banging on your rig.  All in the space of a few seconds.  You're at DEFCON 1 (like Garrett) and you see a dude coming at you, flashing through those silhouettes, with an AK closing distance real fast.

Shit's going down and it's not gonna be good shit.

Ain't no time for fingers on trigger guards or muzzle angles.

 

...which is also relevant to the legal requirement of provocation (AKA, don't start no shit, won't be no shit).  It's a really good reason that, no matter if you are impatient or frustrated or whatever, you shouldn't aggressively drive into a crowd (even if they ARE able to jump out of the way).  A car is a weapon, too.  And there is at least some basis to conclude here that members of the crowd could have reasonably concluded that the car driving into a clearly visible crowd was an act of aggression that threatened imminent serious bodily injury -- just like brandishing a gun does.  In fact, that is exactly how the crowd DID react -- they didn't just pick out a random car to bang on, they reacted to an action.

When you are slinging around a weapon -- car, knife, gun, whatever -- you can provoke some bad shit.

The driver's actions provoked some bad shit.

Foster's rapid approach with an AK at low ready provoked some bad shit.

People need to use their fucking brains when it comes to slinging around weapons.  Foster paid for his folly with his life.  I think that the evidence reflects that the driver was at least reckless in his actions that helped set the chain of events in motion.  Even if he doesn't face penalty for the ultimate act of firing his weapon (which may well be the case because the entire sequence of events is messy and fuzzy as hell), he should face some penalty for recklessly slinging a 2,000 lb weapon towards a crowd, knowing that it was likely to elicit a negative reaction.

You can argue that you should be ABLE to poke a bear and not have it attack you....but once you decide to poke a bear, for whatever reason, you own the bear's predictable reaction.  Doesn't matter if the bear had a right to be there or didn't.  You chose to poke it.  That's a bad choice, with some predictably bad consequences, for which you are responsible as the catalyst.

Edited July 28, 2020 by Brisketexan

[Cajun 11714]

I would agree 100% on this Brisket IF I was certain that this driver drove into that crowd on purpose, ie, looking to start shit.  I've driven into a crowd downtown during SXSW and I certainly wasn't going after anyone.  

I'm not certain he did.  I'm equally not certain he didn't.

Hopefully, that will come out, but at this point assuming with certainty that the driver's action was purposeful (starting shit) is problematic and not established at all.

Edited July 28, 2020 by Cajun

[Brisketexan 105152]

2 minutes ago, Cajun said:

I would agree 100% on this Brisket IF I was certain that this driver drove into that crowd on purpose, ie, looking to start shit.

I'm not certain he did.  I'm equally not certain he didn't.

Hopefully, that will come out, but at this point assuming with certainty that the driver's action was purposeful (starting shit) is problematic and not established at all.

Oh, I agree that we don't know the details of his intention - and clearly, if his intention was to start shit, he "provoked" the situation, and is not entitled to the defense of self-defense.

What I'm getting at is a lesser degree of culpability -- he didn't MISTAKENLY turn into a crowd of people -- he definitely did it on purpose.  And that was at the very least reckless - and I used that word for a reason.  Because when your recklessness sets into motion a chain of events that's reasonably foreseeable, you can at the very least face civil liability, and even criminal liability.

If I am recklessly swinging a sword around in a manner that any reasonable person knows will scare bystanders, I now own the predictable responses of those bystanders -- maybe they stampede away and trample a kid.  That's on me.

Don't drive your car into a crowd.  Even if you don't mean to "start shit," don't even do it RECKLESSLY.  Because you can own the consequences of your reckless conduct.

Which all gets back to the bigger conversation we have been having about weapons -- people are way too fucking cavalier about how they swing them around.  Rifles, cars, what have you.  Our utter disregard for other people is a fucking poison.

[ztejas 43464]

42 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Cars are powerful weapons, and that power doesn't cease to exist just because the car isn't moving, just like the power of a gun doesn't cease to exist just because it isn't being fired.

What a horrible analogy. This isn't Bagdahd circa 2007. Foster is not Jeremy Renner looking for IEDs in the trunk.

I mean are you actually trying to compare the lethal force of a small car at rest vs. a loaded AK-47? A 7.62/39 will go through both car doors and still hit whatever is on the other side with lethality. That car will need at least 3 seconds of full acceleration before it resembles anything close to lethal force.

[clapclapclap 9000]

2 hours ago, mchookem said:

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.😕

Agreed.

Next legislature needs to require guns to be celibate in public. 

[Dahobbs 17569]

52 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

1) You noted you didn't know why I was so invested. I clarified why.

2) You're making an assumption regarding my knowledge of law and it's nuance. You have a right to make that assumption but that's what it is.

3) That's a pretty big leap. Most of the time expressing threat upon assumption doesn't hold up. I bring it up because it refers to the provoke piece. I guess you're not familiar with that particular nuance of self-defense/guns laws. That's okay, I explained it a few pages back if you want to go read.

4) His perceived threat from the car doesn't align with his behaviors. You clearly don't read many of my posts or you would be well aware that I've no need to ask police officers about how they feel about stopped cars. However, it is their JOB to approach stopped cars from which they may feel a threat. I'm pretty sure being a BLM security guard doesn't grant you the same authority.

5) Agreed

6) Agreed

7) That point goes to provoke provision in self defense. Which again, I suggest you review at some point as it is particularly relevant to this case.

2) I was making an observation based upon your statements. It wasn't an assumption. 

3) How is it a leap that a 2-ton vehicle is a potentially deadly weapon? Literally everyone in that crowd acted as if the person in the car initiated an aggressive and dangerous action against them. I feel very comfortable in saying that, had the roles been reversed, Foster would have a legitimate (but perhaps not ultimately successful) argument for self-defense and defense of third-person. In fact, based on your posts here, I would be shocked if you weren't in here arguing Foster's case just as passionately as you have been the driver's.  

4) Yes it does. He perceived a threat to himself and others and drew his gun as a result. It seems perfectly consistent with his behaviors. Hell, the perceived threat is almost certainly why he had his finger on the trigger. I'm baffled how you could see it otherwise. 

43 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

@Dahobbs

Since you want to go down the rabbit hole.

Name the case and specific nuance that directly relates to the topic of this thread that allowed pistol ownership in Chicago?

I have no desire whatsoever to go down that rabbit hole with you and I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Yes, the 2nd amendment is incorporated through the due process clause of the 14th and thus applies to state and local authorities in addition to the federal government. I'm was not surprised by the decision. None of that seems germane here, where we are mainly dealing with an application of Texas law on self-defense.  

Edited July 28, 2020 by Dahobbs

[dcar00 14210]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

(1) The 2nd amendment isn't unique among the pantheon of rights. Every right is subject to reasonable restriction. That is well settled law. And, frankly, I'm not sure what any of that has to do with this case. You can spend your time and money however you choose. 

(2) Bias as to what? I don't have a bias one way or the other as I don't know these people and I don't really know what happened. I think your conclusions on the law are wrong because you don't have an understanding of how nuanced the law can be. 

(3) Foster could reasonably believe that he was protecting himself or others from imminent bodily danger. Cars are powerful weapons, and that power doesn't cease to exist just because the car isn't moving, just like the power of a gun doesn't cease to exist just because it isn't being fired. Both of them can cause injury and death in an instant. Here, Foster could have believed the driver was going to floor the gas at any moment, causing injuries to others or turning the car on Foster. However, I'm not sure this is legally relevant to anything as Foster is dead and not being charged with a crime. 

(4) There is no law that precludes Foster from drawing the conclusion that a stopped car is a threat. I have no idea why you've inserted "reasonable doubt" into that statement or what you mean by it. See above for why a stopped car can easily still be a threat. Hell, ask any police officer whether cars they've pulled over are a threat to them. I know that answer. 

(5) I agree, the driver could have reasonable believed the man with a rifle and his finger on the trigger was a threat and believed he was protecting himself from imminent bodily danger.

(6) I also agree that driver's intentions are critical, particularly whether he intentionally provoked conflict. 

(7) I have no idea what this sentence means: "Can you interpret a group illegally blocking a roadway impeding the car, who has a right of way, legally, and honks at them while stopped as provoking a Threat of Force reaction?" The question is whether the driver intentionally threatened or attacked the people in the roadway. Based on the facts as I know them, it is possible he had that intent. I would need to hear more to get to the point of "beyond I reasonable doubt" that it was in fact his intention. I'm not prepared to say that getting to that point is impossible because I recognize more facts can and will come out. For instance,  the driver could have previously expressed anger about the protests or made comments/social medial/journal/diary entries where he indicated an intent to harm protesters.

 

 

there was a stopped(or even possibly slow rolling) car on congress right near the situation.  its in one of the videos.  why did he not go to that one?

[Longhorn 145]

2 hours ago, Paco said:

3 hours ago, Captainant said:

The victim was part of a crowd that had to avoid a ton-plus of moving steel,

Did you read what you just wrote?

Walk on the sidewalk or and you don't have to avoid anything.

[Dahobbs 17569]

11 minutes ago, ztejas said:

What a horrible analogy. This isn't Bagdahd circa 2007. Foster is not Jeremy Renner looking for IEDs in the trunk.

I mean are you actually trying to compare the lethal force of a small car at rest vs. a loaded AK-47? A 7.62/39 will go through both car doors and still hit whatever is on the other side with lethality. That car will need at least 3 seconds of full acceleration before it resembles anything close to lethal force.

What? IEDs? What are you talking about? I'm simply point out that both a gun and a car can quickly go from "doing nothing" to being deadly. Frankly, I don't think you understand physics very well if you don't think that vehicle that size couldn't become a deadly weapon almost instantly. That is a lot of mass. It doesn't have to be moving that quickly to do serious damage. Whether an AK-47 is "more deadly" doesn't seem relevant at all to me. They are both sufficient to inflict mortal wounds very quickly and effectively. 

[AUS-97HORN 11796]

1 hour ago, ztejas said:

Something I haven't seen discussed yet that a potential case could hinge on - how did they find the AK? I suppose someone could have gotten to it before the first responders, but was the safety on? Was it chambered? 

 

1 hour ago, ztejas said:

That's not the argument I'm making. I'm speaking to if the prosecutor tried to argue that Foster had no intention of escalating the situation it might help their case if the gun wasnt chambered and on safety. But I think any prosecuting argument would be shitty when you look at precedent for this type of stuff in Texas.

 

dude, you have been told at least twice including by Brisket.   It literally doesnt matter.  The "gun" could actually have its fucking barrel and mags cemented and welded shut. 

the law states are you being THREATENED. 

A dude charging me in the dark, I am trapped in my car, surrounded by people banging on my shit, I cant move forward or backward,  he's wearing a mask, it looks like hes got a gun, the guy carrying it is acting like its a gun, and you know that you will not survive a point blank ak47 shot.    I am very, very, very fucking threatened in that situation....   

 

a prosecutor would be laughed out of the trial by a jury if he or she does "but, but, but jury members, it was UNLOADED, there was no fear for the defendant there"

 

now that being said, the next important question is..... where was the pistol stashed and when did the driver go for it?   because it takes a lot of intent to get the gun.

was this guy rolling with it in his lap?  (really odd and very not normal  and implies maybe he was up to no good).

Was it in the small of his back, in a shoulder holster? (very easy to reach and not something the driver has to think very hard about nor does it need much forethought)

.... or was it under his seat, or in his console, or in his glove compartment across the car  (places you have to stretch to get to and actively have time to think and grab the gun in case shit goes down)

How and when the pistol got into the hands of the driver is in my mind much more relevant to the issue at hand, which is, was the driver pissed and trying to start shit, and caused all this so he could get his cap-a-fool jollies on? 

Or did he make a bad turn into a worse situation, started hearing screaming and people rattling his car and he went to go grab the gun.... then turns around to his driver window just in time to see Captain BLM Armed Security charging his ass....

 

 

 

[Pokoloco 1281]

Bunch of stupid white dopes. (no racist)

[Dahobbs 17569]

8 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

there was a stopped(or even possibly slow rolling) car on congress right near the situation.  its in one of the videos.  why did he not go to that one?

Because that car hadn't taken what the crowd perceived as aggressive action? I guess you can pretend that Foster came upon the driver of that car by chance, but it isn't consistent with the facts. Everyone seemed to believe at the time that the driver was threatening the crowd. Now, the crowd and Foster may have been mistaken about the driver's intention. I don't know one way or the other what they really were. But, it would be really hard for me to say that their belief was unreasonable were I sitting on a jury. Again, it doesn't really matter. Foster is dead. He isn't being charged with a crime. 

[Cajun 11714]

26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, I agree that we don't know the details of his intention - and clearly, if his intention was to start shit, he "provoked" the situation, and is not entitled to the defense of self-defense.

What I'm getting at is a lesser degree of culpability -- he didn't MISTAKENLY turn into a crowd of people -- he definitely did it on purpose.  And that was at the very least reckless - and I used that word for a reason.  Because when your recklessness sets into motion a chain of events that's reasonably foreseeable, you can at the very least face civil liability, and even criminal liability.

If I am recklessly swinging a sword around in a manner that any reasonable person knows will scare bystanders, I now own the predictable responses of those bystanders -- maybe they stampede away and trample a kid.  That's on me.

Don't drive your car into a crowd.  Even if you don't mean to "start shit," don't even do it RECKLESSLY.  Because you can own the consequences of your reckless conduct.

Which all gets back to the bigger conversation we have been having about weapons -- people are way too fucking cavalier about how they swing them around.  Rifles, cars, what have you.  Our utter disregard for other people is a fucking poison.

The bolded is not fact at this point, it's conjecture.

[Brisketexan 105152]

20 minutes ago, ztejas said:

What a horrible analogy. This isn't Bagdahd circa 2007. Foster is not Jeremy Renner looking for IEDs in the trunk.

I mean are you actually trying to compare the lethal force of a small car at rest vs. a loaded AK-47? A 7.62/39 will go through both car doors and still hit whatever is on the other side with lethality. That car will need at least 3 seconds of full acceleration before it resembles anything close to lethal force.

That minimal time difference is irrelevant, because...

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What? IEDs? What are you talking about? I'm simply point out that both a gun and a car can quickly go from "doing nothing" to being deadly. Frankly, I don't think you understand physics very well if you don't think that vehicle that size couldn't become a deadly weapon almost instantly. That is a lot of mass. It doesn't have to be moving that quickly to do serious damage. Whether an AK-47 is "more deadly" doesn't seem relevant at all to me. They are both sufficient to inflict mortal wounds very quickly and effectively. 

An imminent threat is an imminent threat.  The car may be slower than a bullet....but it's still faster than me and my reaction time.  If you've just driven your car into a crowd, and the car is still running and there are people nearby, you and your car remain an imminent threat.  It's like the old joke about two guys running from the bear -- I don't have to be faster than the bear, I just have to be faster than you.  The car doesn't have to be faster than a bullet -- it just has to be faster than the person at risk of being run down.

2 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

now that being said, the next important question is..... where was the pistol stashed and when did the driver go for it?   because it takes a lot of intent to get the gun.

was this guy rolling with it in his lap?  (really odd and very not normal  and implies maybe he was up to no good).

Was it in the small of his back, in a shoulder holster? (very easy to reach and not something the driver has to think very hard about nor does it need much forethought)

.... or was it under his seat, or in his console, or in his glove compartment across the car  (places you have to stretch to get to and actively have time to think and grab the gun in case shit goes down)

How and when the pistol got into the hands of the driver is in my mind much more relevant to the issue at hand, which is, was the driver pissed and trying to start shit, and caused all this so he could get his cap-a-fool jollies on? 

 

Those are really good questions.  And they are certainly relevant to intent and recklessness.  If he made the turn into the crowd with his gun in his lap, it tells you he knew and intended to "start some shit."  If, on the other hand, the gun ended up in his hand because of a series of reactions, that tells us that he perhaps didn't go into the turn with the intent or knowledge that he would "start some shit."

[Brisketexan 105152]

1 minute ago, Cajun said:

The bolded is not fact at this point, it's conjecture.

Yeah, see....that's one thing that, from the video, I am comfortable concluding beyond a reasonable doubt.  He didn't accidentally stumble into a crowd of people without seeing them.  He took an accelerating right on red into a clearly visible crowd, while laying on the horn.  He intended to turn into a crowd of people that he clearly saw.  I mean, I truly don't even see what the counterargument would be -- it's utterly inconsistent with the clear visual evidence and use of the car horn.

[Wally Pryor 5261]

1 hour ago, BradInATX said:

IMO, it just seems like a pretty stressful way to live if you're in a city like Austin and you're constantly offended and pissed off about woke culture. 

Annoyances, for sure, but nothing that crosses over into stressful.  Keyboards, use of control B, and other things don't necessarily translate into the latter. 

Down the line I'll have other options to call home.  Until then, it would be nice to see some reasonableness and practicality injected into how we run the city.  You can still have those attributes and simultaneously address social and cultural concerns.  And it's good that we are all trying to be conscientious of those concerns.  But if we've gotten really sideways in trying to raise awareness and / or achieve goals, I'll raise my hand.  Allowing pedestrians, protesters or anyone else to freely roam main thoroughfares, at night, on a Saturday, isn't very smart. It's a recipe for disaster. That came to fruition Saturday night and someone is dead as a result.    

I'm hopeful Adler and the city will (quickly) rethink exactly how, where and when people are allowed to gather and protest.  At a minimum, out of consideration and respect for Foster's loss of life. So far, we've heard nothing.   

Good luck with the move. 

[Cajun 11714]

@Brisketexan

Sorry, I disagree that the video you're talking about leads to that conclusion with certainty.

 

Edited July 28, 2020 by Cajun