Shooting at Austin protest tonight, 1 dead

[Brisketexan 105151]

1 minute ago, Cajun said:

@Brisketexan

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

 

You seriously think he....accidentally turned into that crowd?  Without seeing that they were right there in front of him?  For real?  Help me understand here, because that boggles the mind.

[dcar00 14210]

2 minutes ago, Wally Pryor said:

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. 

or maybe, you know, they could use already established law and city ordinances(both probably long fucking established) instead of having to rethink.    thinking for those dumbasses is bad for all of us.

[Fondren & Main 6718]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

You seriously think he....accidentally turned into that crowd?  Without seeing that they were right there in front of him?  For real?  Help me understand here, because that boggles the mind.

Well, guy was possibly tired, likely panicked and was trying to get the f out of there as soon as possible.  I mean could be.  The one accident I’ve gotten in in my life was because I was physically and mentally exhausted so I wasn’t paying a lot of attention and didn’t look twice before turning.  Shit happens.  If he wanted to hurt people he would have run them over.

[wildcat09 29354]

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You seriously think he....accidentally turned into that crowd?  Without seeing that they were right there in front of him?  For real?  Help me understand here, because that boggles the mind.

[Brisketexan 105151]

4 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

Well, guy was possibly tired, likely panicked and was trying to get the f out of there as soon as possible.  I mean could be.  The one accident I’ve gotten in in my life was because I was physically and mentally exhausted so I wasn’t paying a lot of attention and didn’t look twice before turning.  Shit happens.  If he wanted to hurt people he would have run them over.

1 -- he may not have wanted to hurt them...he may have just wanted to intimidate them ("when they see me coming, they'll sure as shit GTFO of my way!")

2 -- yes, the tired/drunk angle is a possibility.  But the use of the car horn demonstrates conscious awareness that he saw exactly what he was driving into.

As to exhaustion making you do dumbass things -- funny story.  Several years ago, I had worked weeks of 12-14 hr days.  I was burning the candle at both ends.  Was on 15th, heading west to go home at around 9:00 at night.  Got to thinking about whatever I needed to do when I got home, and saw a light two intersections ahead turn green....so I went....right through the red light at Guadalupe, with oncoming traffic (fortunately, they all saw me, and stopped to let the idiot go through the intersection).....with a cop literally right next to me at the light.  About halfway through the intersection, I snapped to and realized what I was doing.  I looked in my rearview, and could actually see the cop's utterly shocked face.  I just moved over to the left and turned into the Starbuck's lot and waited for him to pull up.

He clearly thought he had a drunk (can't blame him).  He asked me "....so....what the hell was THAT?"  I just said "man....I've been working late every night. I'm exhausted.  I saw the green ahead, and I just reacted.  I'm just really tired."  Backup arrived, they talked, looked me over, and told me to get home and go to bed (so, hey, a good cop story).

But importantly, I reacted immediately in a way that showed "oops, I didn't mean to do this."  I didn't honk my horn at the cross-traffic.  The driver honking the horn is pretty rock-solid proof that he knew he was driving into a crowd.

[justhookit 4191]

22 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You seriously think he....accidentally turned into that crowd?  Without seeing that they were right there in front of him?  For real?  Help me understand here, because that boggles the mind.

Yes, but your use of the word accident is misleading. What I see is the driver purposefully turning right into the only lane where he wouldn’t hit anyone. If he intended to drive into the crowd he would have gone straight. Now, why he didn’t just stay stopped at the light have no idea.

[ChickenSandwich 9836]

3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

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. 

If they were terrified, what does mobbing the vehicle accomplish it that situation?  What are now the possible outcomes?  Vehicle damage, driver is assaulted or worse driver feels need to accelerate and leave scene possibly hurting someone? 

The actions and thought processes don’t match in this scenario. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

3 minutes ago, justhookit said:

Yes, but your use of the word accident is misleading. What I see is the driver purposefully turning right into the only lane where he wouldn’t hit anyone. If he intended to drive into the crowd he would have gone straight. Now, why he didn’t just stay stopped at the light have no idea.

He never stopped at the light.  He may have stopped half a block before the light, but he didn't stop within 50 feet of it, he drove through it on red and turned right without stopping.  I'm not assigning any motive to that, just stating what the video shows.

[Hate 20108]

Maybe he was looking at his GPS and it said the fastest way to GTFO was to take a right at that light.

[Billy Pilgrim 1963]

We drive into a crowd every time we leave a football game or movie or something where a large group gets out at the same time. Sometimes you have to get down a street (maybe he lived on that street) and he assumed the crowd would move out of his way the way crowds do after football games. I don’t know the reason for turning down that street but none of us know for certain that it was to kill protesters. In fact, I think the rational thing to do is to move out of the way of a car rather than beat on it to provoke an altercation. This is why protests should coordinate with the city to close streets and prevent things like this from happening. It’s also why we shouldn’t have open carry in high stress situations like protests where tempers are prone to boil over.

[Fondren & Main 6718]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

1 -- he may not have wanted to hurt them...he may have just wanted to intimidate them ("when they see me coming, they'll sure as shit GTFO of my way!")

2 -- yes, the tired/drunk angle is a possibility.  But the use of the car horn demonstrates conscious awareness that he saw exactly what he was driving into.

As to exhaustion making you do dumbass things -- funny story.  Several years ago, I had worked weeks of 12-14 hr days.  I was burning the candle at both ends.  Was on 15th, heading west to go home at around 9:00 at night.  Got to thinking about whatever I needed to do when I got home, and saw a light two intersections ahead turn green....so I went....right through the red light at Guadalupe, with oncoming traffic (fortunately, they all saw me, and stopped to let the idiot go through the intersection).....with a cop literally right next to me at the light.  About halfway through the intersection, I snapped to and realized what I was doing.  I looked in my rearview, and could actually see the cop's utterly shocked face.  I just moved over to the left and turned into the Starbuck's lot and waited for him to pull up.

He clearly thought he had a drunk (can't blame him).  He asked me "....so....what the hell was THAT?"  I just said "man....I've been working late every night. I'm exhausted.  I saw the green ahead, and I just reacted.  I'm just really tired."  Backup arrived, they talked, looked me over, and told me to get home and go to bed (so, hey, a good cop story).

But importantly, I reacted immediately in a way that showed "oops, I didn't mean to do this."  I didn't honk my horn at the cross-traffic.  The driver honking the horn is pretty rock-solid proof that he knew he was driving into a crowd.

Just offering an alternative explanation, so nbd.  I’ve been doing my best to avoid this shit in uptown Dallas if possible.   Been lucky so far.  I’d say in the same situation I’d look for an alternative route.  Guy still may get sued for wrongful death and be out some serious money. He’ll also have to live with the fact that he took a life for the rest of his time on earth.

Edited July 28, 2020 by Fondren & Main

[Dahobbs 17543]

13 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

If they were terrified, what does mobbing the vehicle accomplish it that situation?  What are now the possible outcomes?  Vehicle damage, driver is assaulted or worse driver feels need to accelerate and leave scene possibly hurting someone? 

The actions and thought processes don’t match in this scenario. 

Frightened people do irrational things, news at 11. Again, why do you think the people mobbed the vehicle? For fun? Why does the video contain statements about the car hitting people (even if it didn't actually happen to any significant degree)? It is very clear that the crowd thought there was an attack happening. Different people had different reactions. Some initiated flight. Others initiated fight. Both are natural responses to threats. 

Let me clarify, I'm not saying I approve of the response or would have done the same. I'm just saying it is consistent with the belief they were being attacked. I'm also saying the belief is reasonable enough based on the facts that it would have raised a potentially valid self-defense or defense of others claims had the shooting gone the other way. 

Edited July 28, 2020 by Dahobbs

[justhookit 4191]

4 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

He never stopped at the light.  He may have stopped half a block before the light, but he didn't stop within 50 feet of it, he drove through it on red and turned right without stopping.  I'm not assigning any motive to that, just stating what the video shows.

Christ, I misspoke on the internet. Every other time I’ve mentioned that subject I’ve said he rolled the light. I don’t know why he didn’t simply stop at the light and stay there. 

[BabaYaga 15299]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

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."

A slung-over-the-shoulder long-gun is, or should be viewed with the equivalence of a holstered side-arm.  Low-ready applies to both pistols and rifles.  They are synonymous is terminology and action and should be treated as such......ie., that shit's about to get hairy.

*nor should it be discounted that it takes a fraction of a second to go from shouldered to un-shouldered....or as we've seen in a million westerns, how quickly a pistol can be drawn are fired.

Edited July 28, 2020 by BabaYaga

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

2 minutes ago, justhookit said:

Christ, I misspoke on the internet. Every other time I’ve mentioned that subject I’ve said he rolled the light. I don’t know why he didn’t simply stop at the light and stay there. 

No problem, I don't know why he didn't stop either, given that the light was red. I know for damned sure if I'm driving in downtown Austin after dark, I'm full stopping at any red light or stop sign, regardless of if I'm turning.  Cops would normally be all over your ass.

[Brisketexan 105151]

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

A slung-over-the-shoulder long-gun is, or should be viewed with the equivalence of a holstered side-arm.  Low-ready applies to both pistols and rifles.  They are synonymous is terminology and action and should be treated as such......ie., that shit's about to get hairy.

*nor should it be discounted that it takes a fraction of a second to go from shouldered to un-shouldered....or as we've seen in a million westerns, how quickly a pistol can be drawn are fired.

Exactly.  "Low ready" is a posture that is inherently aggressive.  Yes, as a technical matter, it may mean the difference between being able to shoot me in 1/10th of a second vs. being able to shoot me in 1.5 seconds, but for the purposes of aggression and creating an imminent threat, the different postures matter.

Come towards me with a gun on your hip?  Fine.  Come towards me with your hand on the butt or the gun already drawn?  Not cool.

[ztejas 43454]

54 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

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"

Fair enough. I was just spitballing - wasn't trying to argue whether it mattered or not.

54 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. 

The only way that a stopped vehicle and a loaded AK are similar imminent threats is if someone is watching the car with their thumb over a detonator ready to blow it to kingdom come. Whether the AK or the vehicle are "more deadly" is absolutely relevant when one of them is exponentially more deadly than the other. 

46 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That minimal time difference is irrelevant, because...

 

46 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

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.

Go out on a range and stand 30 feet from someone with an AK in ready position. Without warning of when they are going to fire, see if you can dodge or run away from the shooter once they decide to start firing.

Now go out and stand 30 feet in front of a car at rest. For it to have a roughly 50/50 chance of killing you if it strikes you head on, it will need to be going about 40 miles per hour. (I'll use this for data https://www.google.com/amp/s/gizmodo.com/how-likely-you-are-to-get-killed-by-a-car-depending-on-1778993900/amp) Let's call it a chevy cruze, because the vehicle in the video looks close enough. That car takes almost 8 seconds to get from 0-60. It probably takes at least 5 seconds to get to 40 mph. 

Maybe that car is faster than your reaction time, but I'm willing to bet that as long as I'm paying attention to the car (and everyone in the immediate vicinity was) I could side step it quickly enough after it accelerates to protect myself from harm, or at the very least prevent a fatal accident. I would hope any non-paraplegic in decent shape could do the same.

Threats to life are nowhere near equal in this scenario. Whether Foster's lawyers would try and argue the point or not, or try and classify them as the same "type" of threat isn't going to sway me one way or another if I'm sitting on that jury. Foster's trigger finger slips and an AK round might go clear through the driver's car and blow a bystander's head off before anyone even hears the shot. The driver's foot slips off the brake and in the immediate proceedings maybe someone dislocates their knee or breaks their hip.

The time difference is not minimal, it's not irrelevant, and neither is the difference in lethality. 

[Brisketexan 105151]

9 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

He’ll also have to live with the fact that he took a life for the rest of his time on earth.

And this can't be understated.  No matter the outcome -- even full civil and criminal exoneration -- the driver is on the negative side of the ledger of life.  He will never be able to erase that scene and killing from his brain.

This is why the whole fucking bravado with firearms bullshit is so damned wrong.  We have a shitload of people who are hyper-ready to use a gun against another person, when they should be taking the exact OPPOSITE approach -- do everything you can to AVOID ever using your gun.  Taking a human life isn't just a big deal -- it's the biggest deal.  You should do everything possible to never, ever do it.

Ask any number of generations of soldiers who spent the rest of their lives self-medicating to deal with their experiences.  It's not something you want to do.

[BabaYaga 15299]

3 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Threats to life are nowhere near equal in this scenario.....neither is the difference in lethality. 

Dead is dead

[riloh05 107]

10 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

A slung-over-the-shoulder long-gun is, or should be viewed with the equivalence of a holstered side-arm.  Low-ready applies to both pistols and rifles.  They are synonymous is terminology and action and should be treated as such......ie., that shit's about to get hairy.

*nor should it be discounted that it takes a fraction of a second to go from shouldered to un-shouldered....or as we've seen in a million westerns, how quickly a pistol can be drawn are fired.

to an individual standing...this makes sense. sitting in a car, that position can look threatening as if the gun may be pointed directly at them.

[BabaYaga 15299]

Just now, riloh05 said:

to an individual standing...this makes sense. sitting in a car, that position can look threatening as if the gun may be pointed directly at them.

If it's pointing at you.  Sitting or standing, then neither the rifle or pistol are secured (shouldered or holstered).  

[Dahobbs 17543]

16 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Fair enough. I was just spitballing - wasn't trying to argue whether it mattered or not.

The only way that a stopped vehicle and a loaded AK are similar imminent threats is if someone is watching the car with their thumb over a detonator ready to blow it to kingdom come. Whether the AK or the vehicle are "more deadly" is absolutely relevant when one of them is exponentially more deadly than the other. 

 

Go out on a range and stand 30 feet from someone with an AK in ready position. Without warning of when they are going to fire, see if you can dodge or run away from the shooter once they decide to start firing.

Now go out and stand 30 feet in front of a car at rest. For it to have a roughly 50/50 chance of killing you if it strikes you head on, it will need to be going about 40 miles per hour. (I'll use this for data https://www.google.com/amp/s/gizmodo.com/how-likely-you-are-to-get-killed-by-a-car-depending-on-1778993900/amp) Let's call it a chevy cruze, because the vehicle in the video looks close enough. That car takes almost 8 seconds to get from 0-60. It probably takes at least 5 seconds to get to 40 mph. 

Maybe that car is faster than your reaction time, but I'm willing to bet that as long as I'm paying attention to the car (and everyone in the immediate vicinity was) I could side step it quickly enough after it accelerates to protect myself from harm, or at the very least prevent a fatal accident. I would hope any non-paraplegic in decent shape could do the same.

Threats to life are nowhere near equal in this scenario. Whether Foster's lawyers would try and argue the point or not, or try and classify them as the same "type" of threat isn't going to sway me one way or another if I'm sitting on that jury. Foster's trigger finger slips and an AK round might go clear through the driver's car and blow a bystander's head off before anyone even hears the shot. The driver's foot slips off the brake and in the immediate proceedings maybe someone dislocates their knee or breaks their hip.

The time difference is not minimal, it's not irrelevant, and neither is the difference in lethality. 

It is legally irrelevant. You'd be booted at jury selection if anyone found out you harbored these beliefs because they show an unwillingness to follow the law and the instructions of the judge. Again, a threat of imminent and serious harm is a threat regardless of its form. 

Let's take a different example. If someone threatens to stab you with a knife are you allowed to defend yourself with a gun? Assuming the threat is real and imminent, absolutely yes. The fact that the gun of the person claiming self-defense is "more deadly" is completely irrelevant. Going back to this situation, a stopped but running vehicle can inflict serious injury in the same or less time it takes an assailant with a knife to travel a few feet and stab you. The car is almost certainly "more deadly" than the knife.  Despite that, both can cause injury quickly enough to be considered an "imminent" threat in the appropriate circumstances. If self-defense may be appropriate in the knife scenario, it must also be potentially appropriate when dealing with a stopped car. 

Edited July 28, 2020 by Dahobbs

[Brisketexan 105151]

6 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Fair enough. I was just spitballing - wasn't trying to argue whether it mattered or not.

The only way that a stopped vehicle and a loaded AK are similar imminent threats is if someone is watching the car with their thumb over a detonator ready to blow it to kingdom come. Whether the AK or the vehicle are "more deadly" is absolutely relevant when one of them is exponentially more deadly than the other. 

 

Go out on a range and stand 30 feet from someone with an AK in ready position. Without warning of when they are going to fire, see if you can dodge or run away from the shooter once they decide to start firing.

Now go out and stand 30 feet in front of a car at rest. For it to have a roughly 50/50 chance of killing you if it strikes you head on, it will need to be going about 40 miles per hour. (I'll use this for data https://www.google.com/amp/s/gizmodo.com/how-likely-you-are-to-get-killed-by-a-car-depending-on-1778993900/amp) Let's call it a chevy cruze, because the vehicle in the video looks close enough. That car takes almost 8 seconds to get from 0-60. It probably takes at least 5 seconds to get to 40 mph. 

Maybe that car is faster than your reaction time, but I'm willing to bet that as long as I'm paying attention to the car (and everyone in the immediate vicinity was) I could side step it quickly enough after it accelerates to protect myself from harm, or at the very least prevent a fatal accident. I would hope any non-paraplegic in decent shape could do the same.

Threats to life are nowhere near equal in this scenario. Whether Foster's lawyers would try and argue the point or not, or try and classify them as the same "type" of threat isn't going to sway me one way or another if I'm sitting on that jury. Foster's trigger finger slips and an AK round might go clear through the driver's car and blow a bystander's head off before anyone even hears the shot. The driver's foot slips off the brake and in the immediate proceedings maybe someone dislocates their knee or breaks their hip.

The time difference is not minimal, it's not irrelevant, and neither is the difference in lethality. 

The car doesn't need to kill me -- serious bodily injury is sufficient fear.  10 mph can do that.  And certainly when this event started, there were people a shitload closer than 50 feet from the oncoming car.  Dude, it's pretty well established that a car heading in your direction at any material speed constitutes a threat of serious bodily injury.  And even if I'm 20-30 feet away, a car accelerating towards me can get there in a few seconds, and can do some damage.  And yeah....I'm a pretty slow dude (bum knee and all that)....but that doesn't matter.  A car heading your way at any material speed is a threat of serious bodily injury.

People aren't expected to conduct F=MA math on the fly.  A car headed your way above 5 mph is a threat.

[Cajun 11705]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

You seriously think he....accidentally turned into that crowd?  Without seeing that they were right there in front of him?  For real?  Help me understand here, because that boggles the mind.

No, I don't know whether he accidentally did it or meant to do it.  Not from that video.

Perhaps it's because during SXSW a couple of yrs ago, I was driving not far from there and turned into a crowd.  It was my fault and boy some of them let me have it verbally, no banging on my car.  I had my head on a swivel b/c of the scooters.  They were everywhere, going the wrong way, weaving in and out of traffic, and I had just seen one scooter driver ram into a car that was stopped at a stop light.  My thought right at that point was, "I'm getting the fuck outta here, this is like a real life Asteroids game on wheels!"  I was anxious, just ready to get away.  I made a wrong turn while my head spun around, trying to avoid the next potential lawsuit coming at me, right into a bunch of people.  I didn't hit anyone nor did I honk the horn.  In fact I rolled down my window and apologized profusely.    Then, as I was backing out some chick jumps right in back of me and I damned near hit her.  Not her fault, she had no reason to think that a car would coming at her backwards in that scene.  Good thing I was going real slow and it all ended with my tail between my legs and a long time for reflection on my way back to Circle C.  

Had there been someone getting video of my turn into that crowd from the same angle of that we've all seen of this guy, up until the point where he honks, it would have looked quite similar.

Having driven downtown ATX quite a bit for Lyft during events I saw that what happened in my situation wasn't unique.  I saw wrong way drivers, pedestrians who had been wiped out, people flying off of scooters, you name it.  I've seen drivers panic in crowds just like I did, trying to exit a percieved bad situation only to make it worse.  In the wrong, but not with bad intentions.  

Unlike you, I am not 100% certain that this driver didn't fit that description.  Also, I'm not 100% he did.

I have no certainty either way, you do.  That's cool, but that's the difference.

Edited July 28, 2020 by Cajun

[ztejas 43454]

7 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Dead is dead

The only person dead here is the person that got shot.

[Gourmand 7774]

16 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I think until there is additional evidence we are going to need to agree to disagree as it really isn't clear to me or many others.

We have video evidence of this vehicle running a red light with protesters smack dab in the middle of a busy, well-lit intersection downtown. We have audio evidence of him blaring his horn for five seconds without letup, followed thereafter by five shots from his gun. We have evidence of protesters screaming in fear of his car. He obviously knew what was happening and could see them in the street and the fact that you don't admit as much in the face of these circumstances, yet you had no problem insisting early on that Garrett Foster fired his weapon and was "itching" to do so exposes your clear lack of objectivity. This driver was not some innocent guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's just contradictory to everything we can see and hear with our own eyes. 

 

[clapclapclap 9000]

26 minutes ago, Hate said:

Maybe he was looking at his GPS and it said the fastest way to GTFO was to take a right at that light.

Not sure if Siri-ous

[Somnio 751]

12 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I've come to a realization that the car/driving issue has been eating away at me. 

More importantly, I have also come to the conclusion as to why. 

I lived in Austin for a long time. Around 20 years. During the bulk of that time I rode a motorcycle. So I watched cars very closely, as my life literally depended on doing so. 

Now in that time the last three years I can say, with full certainty, that Austin driving was among the most erractic I've experienced anywhere and I've driven in 30 states a LOT. 

Determining intent of an Austin driver, in down town, at night, with absolute certainty is, based on a ton of evidence, in the best of times, extremely difficult and based on my experience nearly impossible if not complete so. 

There are/were threads on this and TOS bemoaning the obscenely terrible driving in Austin. Crossed with the spike in pedestrian deaths in Austin (which has many causes, not just drivers), an assertion of absolute certainty of a driver's intent in downtown Austin at night, while knowing zero details about that driver and their experience level driving and driving in Austin or historical traffic record is... well. 

A leap of faith. Pure and simple. 

Yep.  I work downtown, and quite regularly see idiots driving the wrong way down 1-way streets, car and pedestrian near misses, and other assorted driver ineptitude.

Considering traffic violations and drivers being assholes as threats which may justify deadly force is ridiculous.

I said it before, but if the driver had intentions to commit murder with his car there would be no question of his intent.

But as they say, common sense really is not that common...

Edited July 28, 2020 by Somnio

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

13 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I've come to a realization that the car/driving issue has been eating away at me. 

More importantly, I have also come to the conclusion as to why. 

I lived in Austin for a long time. Around 20 years. During the bulk of that time I rode a motorcycle. So I watched cars very closely, as my life literally depended on doing so. 

Now in that time the last three years I can say, with full certainty, that Austin driving was among the most erractic I've experienced anywhere and I've driven in 30 states a LOT. 

Determining intent of an Austin driver, in down town, at night, with absolute certainty is, based on a ton of evidence, in the best of times, extremely difficult and based on my experience nearly impossible if not complete so. 

There are/were threads on this and TOS bemoaning the obscenely terrible driving in Austin. Crossed with the spike in pedestrian deaths in Austin (which has many causes, not just drivers), an assertion of absolute certainty of a driver's intent in downtown Austin at night, while knowing zero details about that driver and their experience level driving and driving in Austin or historical traffic record is... well. 

A leap of faith. Pure and simple. 

I don't think most of us are assigning any intent or motive to the driver, I'm not at least.  Just making clear that instead of stopping at the red light and waiting, like the car to his left did, for whatever reason - distraction, intoxication, whatever - he rolled through the red at a pretty good clip right into a clearly visible crowd of pedestrians.  

[BabaYaga 15299]

21 minutes ago, ztejas said:

The only person dead here is the person that got shot.

Oh, ok.  Then since nuance and context have gone completely out the window, shall we compare automobile and firearms related death counts? 

[ztejas 43454]

36 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It is legally irrelevant. You'd be booted at jury selection if anyone found out you harbored these beliefs because they show an unwillingness to follow the law and the instructions of the judge. Again, a threat of imminent and serious harm is a threat regardless of its form. 

Let's take a different example. If someone threatens to stab you with a knife are you allowed to defend yourself with a gun? Assuming the threat is real and imminent, absolutely yes. The fact that the gun of the person claiming self-defense is "more deadly" is completely irrelevant. Going back to this situation, a stopped but running vehicle can inflict serious injury in the same or less time it takes an assailant with a knife to travel a few feet and stab you. The car is almost certainly "more deadly" than the knife.  Despite that, both can cause injury quickly enough to be considered an "imminent" threat in the appropriate circumstances. If self-defense may be appropriate in the knife scenario, it must also be potentially appropriate when dealing with a stopped car. 

35 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The car doesn't need to kill me -- serious bodily injury is sufficient fear.  10 mph can do that.  And certainly when this event started, there were people a shitload closer than 50 feet from the oncoming car.  Dude, it's pretty well established that a car heading in your direction at any material speed constitutes a threat of serious bodily injury.  And even if I'm 20-30 feet away, a car accelerating towards me can get there in a few seconds, and can do some damage.  And yeah....I'm a pretty slow dude (bum knee and all that)....but that doesn't matter.  A car heading your way at any material speed is a threat of serious bodily injury.

People aren't expected to conduct F=MA math on the fly.  A car headed your way above 5 mph is a threat.

Correct me if I'm wrong, what I'm hearing is that, under the legal definition, the stalled car carried the same imminent threat to life as did the AK47. This is without taking into account the handgun that the driver had, which is a different discussion. 

I'm going to make a non-controversial assumption that the shooter here has a very good defense within the state of Texas for any murder charge. 

So let's flip it on it's head, since according to you two, both the vehicle and the gun posed a similar threat to human life. 

The car turns right, honks its horn, maybe narrowly misses some protestors but does not hit anybody, comes to a stop, Foster approaches the car, raises his gun and shoots and kills the driver. What is the likelihood that Foster avoids a murder or manslaughter conviction? I'm going to say 0%.

 

[hornbri 1399]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

You seriously think he....accidentally turned into that crowd?  Without seeing that they were right there in front of him?  For real?  Help me understand here, because that boggles the mind.

Yes - Austin drivers are terrible.

Cool story time...I was in a car in the right hand lane where those people were once. I was stopped because the next light was red and traffic backed up. A car turning right (just like this car) ran right into me because he was so busy looking left waiting for his opening he did not see a STOPPED SUV in front of him. So yes it happens because people are terrible drivers. 

I dont know what happened here but it is not clear one way or another if it was on purpose. 

[Brisketexan 105151]

5 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, what I'm hearing is that, under the legal definition, the stalled car carried the same imminent threat to life as did the AK47. This is without taking into account the handgun that the driver had, which is a different discussion. 

I'm going to make a non-controversial assumption that the shooter here has a very good defense within the state of Texas for any murder charge. 

So let's flip it on it's head, since according to you two, both the vehicle and the gun posed a similar threat to human life. 

The car turns right, honks its horn, maybe narrowly misses some protestors but does not hit anybody, comes to a stop, Foster approaches the car, raises his gun and shoots and kills the driver. What is the likelihood that Foster avoids a murder or manslaughter conviction? I'm going to say 0%.

 

"Stalled?"  Where did you read that it was "stalled?"  From what I understand, it was running and ready to go the entire time.  That makes a pretty significant difference.

As to your scenario at the end, just like the details about what the driver did here matter, the answer is "it depends."  Was the driver making a move to accelerate?  Did he say anything?  Did he raise a weapon at Foster or someone else?  If the driver was just sitting there sipping on his latte, then yeah, Foster probably gets charged.  But your hypothetical ignores the complexity of the dynamic situation - the same complexity that may work out in the driver's favor here.

[hayden_horn 11362]

44 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

We have video evidence of this vehicle running a red light with protesters smack dab in the middle of a busy, well-lit intersection downtown. We have audio evidence of him blaring his horn for five seconds without letup, followed thereafter by five shots from his gun. We have evidence of protesters screaming in fear of his car. He obviously knew what was happening and could see them in the street and the fact that you don't admit as much in the face of these circumstances, yet you had no problem insisting early on that Garrett Foster fired his weapon and was "itching" to do so exposes your clear lack of objectivity. This driver was not some innocent guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's just contradictory to everything we can see and hear with our own eyes. 

 

yeah, after mulling it over for a bit, i'm coming to the conclusion that the driver/shooter wanted a confrontation. he intentionally drove into the crowd, and he was johnny on the spot with his trigger finger. he reacted almost immediately. it seems strange to me. aggressive on the horn, aggressive turn into a crowd, obvious irritation present and a quick as fuck trigger finger.

[dcar00 14210]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Frightened people do irrational things, news at 11. Again, why do you think the people mobbed the vehicle? For fun? Why does the video contain statements about the car hitting people (even if it didn't actually happen to any significant degree)? It is very clear that the crowd thought there was an attack happening. Different people had different reactions. Some initiated flight. Others initiated fight. Both are natural responses to threats. 

Let me clarify, I'm not saying I approve of the response or would have done the same. I'm just saying it is consistent with the belief they were being attacked. I'm also saying the belief is reasonable enough based on the facts that it would have raised a potentially valid self-defense or defense of others claims had the shooting gone the other way. 

actually it may or may not be in this case but people mob vehicles in certain situations, and there are situations where there is joy in doing it.

[dcar00 14210]

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

yeah, after mulling it over for a bit, i'm coming to the conclusion that the driver/shooter wanted a confrontation. he intentionally drove into the crowd, and he was johnny on the spot with his trigger finger. he reacted almost immediately. it seems strange to me. aggressive on the horn, aggressive turn into a crowd, obvious irritation present and a quick as fuck trigger finger.

he was quick as fuck but the only person, given there were multiple targets available, he hit(apparently) was the guy who came up to his car with a gun  at the very least at a low ready position.

[hayden_horn 11362]

4 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

he was quick as fuck but the only person, given there were multiple targets available, he hit(apparently) was the guy who came up to his car with a gun  at the very least at a low ready position.

i would just posit that he had his handgun at the ready. when i'm transporting my handgun, it's probably not loaded, and if it is, it's not chambered, and it's holstered. i realize plenty of people ride around with a loaded and chambered gun (my brother does), but it's not how i would roll. i'm just surprised at how quickly he drew a bead and shot 5 times in a consistent pattern.

Edited July 28, 2020 by hayden_horn

[hornbri 1399]

4 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i would just posit that he had his handgun at the ready. when i'm transporting my handgun, it's probably not loaded, and if it is, it's not chambered, and it's holstered. i realize plenty of people ride around with a loaded and chambered gun (my brother does), but it's not how i would roll. i'm just surprised at how quickly he drew a bead and shot 5 times in a consistent pattern.

can't wait to find out he was a off duty cop....

[ztejas 43454]

36 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Oh, ok.  Then since nuance and context have gone completely out the window, shall we compare automobile and firearms related death counts? 

I didn't realize there was any nuance to your comment, since what you said was "dead is dead". I was commenting on who is dead and who isn't. 

And since the discussion is being centered around the vehicle's threat to pedestrians, if you'd like to know, ~6,000 pedestrians were killed by vehicles in the US in 2016 while ~38,000 people were killed by firearms.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

4 minutes ago, hornbri said:

can't wait to find out he was a off duty cop....

He would have missed, likely.

[dcar00 14210]

3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i would just posit that he had his handgun at the ready. when i'm transporting my handgun, it's probably not loaded, and if it is, it's not chambered, and it's holstered. i realize plenty of people ride around with a loaded and chambered gun (my brother does), but it's not how i would roll. i'm just surprised at how quickly he drew a bead and shot 5 times in a consistent pattern.

agree, he could easily have it at the ready and not be in violation of the law. AK 47 guy unfortunately picked the wrong dude to roll up on.  It sucks for many involved. 

IMO,

if AK47 guy stands on the sidewalk a good distance away, everything goes away.  

If car guy just sits there at the light for however long it would take for the protesters to pass, everything goes away.

I do posit that it is very likely that even if car guy had turned the corner slowly and not honked his car would have been surrounded.

[immamac 42854]

I'm not trying to stifle discussion but I feel like news related to this event is going to get lost in the great discussion that is happening. Do we need to do anything about that? I'm open to ideas.

[Armybrat 40850]

8 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i would just posit that he had his handgun at the ready. when i'm transporting my handgun, it's probably not loaded, and if it is, it's not chambered, and it's holstered. i realize plenty of people ride around with a loaded and chambered gun (my brother does), but it's not how i would roll. i'm just surprised at how quickly he drew a bead and shot 5 times in a consistent pattern.

When I’m transporting my handgun (s) in the car, it is in easy reach ready for drawing & firing in about 1-2 seconds. I know at least two dozen LTC holders, and they all do the same.... legally.

[dcar00 14210]

5 minutes ago, immamac said:

I'm not trying to stifle discussion but I feel like news related to this event is going to get lost in the great discussion that is happening. Do we need to do anything about that? I'm open to ideas.

I'd say leave it here.  new videos will come out, be posted here and there will be more discussion.

[Hate 20108]

Is there any news yet? I would think if there was it would be quickly posted here. I don’t think this thread is a shitshow...yet.

[dcar00 14210]

2 hours ago, Longhorn said:

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

oh yeah

 

[ztejas 43454]

28 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

"Stalled?"  Where did you read that it was "stalled?"  From what I understand, it was running and ready to go the entire time.  That makes a pretty significant difference.

I meant stopped; should have used a different word. And to clarify my hypothetical, the only things I'm altering about the event as it happened are the driver having a gun and Foster firing at him, let's say at the same point in the video that the first shot was fired. 

29 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Was the driver making a move to accelerate?

Doesn't look like it, and doesn't look like anyone was immediately in front of him.

31 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Did he say anything? 

Does it matter? What could he have said to warrant (subjectively or legally) getting shot sitting in a car at rest. 

32 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Did he raise a weapon at Foster or someone else? 

No, he doesn't have a gun. His only weapon is his vehicle. 

[Wally Pryor 5261]

 

6 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

If car guy just sits there at the light for however long it would take for the protesters to pass, everything goes away.

Perhaps.   If the march was long, may have tested his patience a bit. 

But it should never have come to this.  Completely preventable if we don't mix cars and people.  And I'll keep beating this dead horse.  If permitted, barricades are up, streets are shut down, and cops are out to enforce.  If no permit, the streets are meant for vehicular traffic and not for unencumbered gatherings and marches.   We can have one or the other.   Not both. 

 

[ztejas 43454]

26 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i would just posit that he had his handgun at the ready. when i'm transporting my handgun, it's probably not loaded, and if it is, it's not chambered, and it's holstered. i realize plenty of people ride around with a loaded and chambered gun (my brother does), but it's not how i would roll. i'm just surprised at how quickly he drew a bead and shot 5 times in a consistent pattern.

This is what is piquing the interest of the conspiracy theorist in me. The local news caught my attention when they said that APD had been monitoring Foster or looking into him or some such synonym (can't recall the exact wording).

The shooter also immediately pulled over and called the cops. Which seems like a strange reaction to say the least after willingly putting 5 rounds into someone - justified or not. 

What if it was an orchestrated hit disguised to look like a shooting in the heat of the moment? "Foster is going to be passing this street at x time, turn into the group of protestors near where he should be, if he approaches you with his gun wait until he gets close and shoot him. If you shoot him, pull over and call 911 and you won't be charged"

I want to know more about the shooter. 

 

[ztejas 43454]

https://www.statesman.com/news/20200728/downtown-austin-memorial-to-slain-protester-garrett-foster-vandalized