Shooting at Austin protest tonight, 1 dead

[dcar00 14210]

17 minutes ago, Wally Pryor said:

 

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. 

 

well of course but that would entail logical thought and enforcement by the city.  right now we have both and we are going to like it, gotdam it!

[Cajun 11705]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

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.

All of this.

[dcar00 14210]

1 minute ago, BurntEyes said:

Brat hit on the carry methods in cars.

I can tell you with 100% confidence that I can, with repeated results, from a seated position, draw and fire out a simulated and real car window 2 shots in under 2 seconds with a sub 2" groupings at sub 5 feet.

I can also from draw from cover at 5 yards empty a 1911 magazine (8 rounds) in about a 6-8" center mass grouping from rention position and tact load in less than 4 seconds, repeatedly. 

Shooter doesn't nessecarily have my level of gun practice and training, but he might.

yeah but can you hit a quarter flipped in the air from 20 feet?

[Cajun 11705]

38 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

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.

 

[Dahobbs 17544]

1 hour 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%.

 

No one is arguing that the threat is the "same." What we are saying is that the threat in both scenarios, car or gun (or knife), constitutes imminent threat of bodily damage. They don't have to be of the same quality, just sufficient quality. They both meet that threshold.  Go back to my knife scenario: do you have the right to defend yourself from a knife attack with a gun? Does it matter to you that a gun is more deadly than a knife? 

To your scenario, it depends on the facts. You've outlined one set of facts to intentionally color the picture one way. Ultimately, if the driver were to do or say something that indicates he is about to accelerate and run into either Foster or other individuals, then I think Foster would have a decent (but not infallible) claim for self-defense or defense of others.

Altering your scenario slightly, let's say neither individuals had been shot and instead all that happened was Foster approached and the driver ran away. The police could try and charge Foster with assault (i.e., threatening driver with a weapon). I think he'd have a pretty damn good claim of self-defense or defense of third person in that situation. 

Edited July 28, 2020 by Dahobbs

[Halohal 498]

Years back, the castle doctrine was applied to a road rage incident on Mopac. Dude try to justify excessive force but ended up being charge because the vehicle was not his, therefore not his proper to protect... Fine line

[dcar00 14210]

3 minutes ago, Cajun said:

 

avatar checks out

[Wally Pryor 5261]

22 minutes ago, ztejas said:

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).

Foster had been carrying his AK while protesting outside of Cronk's house.   

That's fucked up.  And probably when you start monitoring someone more closely, if they were at all.   

[dcar00 14210]

3 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

With a shotgun, a lever action rifle and a single action revolver. 

You can't?

 bow and arrow or GTFO.

[Halohal 498]

Saw that same segment about police monitoring Foster cause at house to protest. Don't get me wrong but if someone is standing outside my house I'm calling po-po.

Edited July 28, 2020 by Halohal
Spell check

[Brisketexan 105151]

33 minutes ago, ztejas said:

 

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

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

What could he have said?  Something like "I'm gonna kill you, motherfucker" -- that would have altered the shit out of the dynamic.

Even if his only weapon is his vehicle, what did he do inside?  Did he turn from looking out the window, look forward, and grab the gearshift to put it in drive?  That may be seen as an aggressive and threatening move when there are people in front of the car.

I mean, if you want to write a hypothetical where nobody else was around but Foster, and the driver had his hands clasped in prayer the whole time, sure, that's a great shooting.  But it's an absurd hypothetical that has as assume a shitload of facts that are either unknown or are contrary to the evidence.

So, yes.  If a person is just sitting in their car, minding their own business, and a dude rushes up to you and points an AK at you, you can shoot him.  Not sure what relevance that has here, as it strips away pretty much every other factor that actually was in play, but you do you.

[Brisketexan 105151]

6 minutes ago, Wally Pryor said:

Foster had been carrying his AK while protesting outside of Cronk's house.   

That's fucked up.  And probably when you start monitoring someone more closely, if they were at all.   

 

3 minutes ago, Halohal said:

Saw that same segment about police monitoring Foster cause at house to protest. Don't get me wrong but if someone is standing outside my house I'm calling po-po.

And yeah, that's fucked up.  It's the same problem I had with the "reopen America" crowd that showed up in Michigan at the statehouse - you know, where the lege was actually working - strapped and threatening as hell.

We've got to quit this shit of using weapons as a means of force-projection and intimidation.  If you are purposefully causing someone else to be in fear of bodily injury, that's assault (look it up):

Quote

Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;

(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or

(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.

You may have a right to carry.  You do not have a right to carry in a manner that is intended to and does cause another person to feel threatened with serious bodily injury.  Enough of this shit.

[Bevo 13577]

1 minute ago, Halohal said:

Saw that same segment about policeonitoribg Foster cause at house to protest. Don't get me wrong but if someone is standing outside my house I'm calling po-po.

I guess you could use a restraining order but what laws can be applied to harassment? Let us say that you are trying to take over a company and one of the stockholders gets upset. I've seen it before where they intimidate by releasing on social media the name and address of the person trying to buy the company. What if they hired someone to pace outside the guy's house with a gun?

[Wally Pryor 5261]

7 minutes ago, Halohal said:

Saw that same segment about police monitoring Foster cause at house to protest. Don't get me wrong but if someone is standing outside my house I'm calling po-po.

Is po-po slang for "social worker"?

Only curious. 

[Wally Pryor 5261]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

And yeah, that's fucked up.  It's the same problem I had with the "reopen America" crowd that showed up in Michigan at the statehouse - you know, where the lege was actually working - strapped and threatening as hell.

We've got to quit this shit of using weapons as a means of force-projection and intimidation.  If you are purposefully causing someone else to be in fear of bodily injury, that's assault (look it up):

You may have a right to carry.  You do not have a right to carry in a manner that is intended to and does cause another person to feel threatened with serious bodily injury.  Enough of this shit.

Yeah, I'm guessing Cronk is thinking he got more than he bargained for with this gig and wishes he was back at his previous employer. 

Wait, scratch that. 

[Halohal 498]

6 minutes ago, Bevo said:

I guess you could use a restraining order but what laws can be applied to harassment? Let us say that you are trying to take over a company and one of the stockholders gets upset. I've seen it before where they intimidate by releasing on social media the name and address of the person trying to buy the company. What if they hired someone to pace outside the guy's house with a gun?

Yes greed is good, by all means win and crush your opponent. No laws will stop that I know of and if people with funds will litigate.  People will rely on the system to call the police and others will take arm to defend. Still no law for standing with a gun on front of house for some time. Most of the time the police will escalate the situation, but still Foster was monitored as peaceful, police had no cause?

[Wally Pryor 5261]

1 minute ago, BurntEyes said:

If not that, a Facebook post of a video of you making not so subtle terroristic threats might also get the job done if the "all police should die" motif he presented online had not already done so.

Yeah.    Cops in Portland lose their eyesight after being blinded by lasers?   Meh, they don't matter. 

[ztejas 43455]

14 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

To your scenario, it depends on the facts. You've outlined one set of facts to intentionally color the picture one way.

I'm not trying to color anything. I'm trying to make it hinge on you and Brisket's definition and legal treatment of imminent threat to life,

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

What could he have said?  Something like "I'm gonna kill you, motherfucker" -- that would have altered the shit out of the dynamic.

Even if his only weapon is his vehicle, what did he do inside?  Did he turn from looking out the window, look forward, and grab the gearshift to put it in drive?  That may be seen as an aggressive and threatening move when there are people in front of the car.

I mean, if you want to write a hypothetical where nobody else was around but Foster, and the driver had his hands clasped in prayer the whole time, sure, that's a great shooting.  But it's an absurd hypothetical that has as assume a shitload of facts that are either unknown or are contrary to the evidence.

I don't care what the driver does or doesn't say or does or doesn't do in his car short of threatening to set off a bomb (can we agree he didn't threaten this? Audio would have picked it up, right?) or pulling out a gun. Come up with anything you want. Give me a hypothetical where it would be defensible for Foster to shoot him in the head with an AK47. Where the driver doesn't have a gun on his person, doesn't accelerate, and doesn't get out of the car. Give me a hypothetical where a jury would think it reasonable for Foster to shoot him with an assault rifle while the car is stopped.

[Armybrat 40850]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

And yeah, that's fucked up.  It's the same problem I had with the "reopen America" crowd that showed up in Michigan at the statehouse - you know, where the lege was actually working - strapped and threatening as hell.

We've got to quit this shit of using weapons as a means of force-projection and intimidation.  If you are purposefully causing someone else to be in fear of bodily injury, that's assault (look it up):

You may have a right to carry.  You do not have a right to carry in a manner that is intended to and does cause another person to feel threatened with serious bodily injury.  Enough of this shit.

Like the assholes several years ago who showed up in a Texas state rep’s office in the Capitol totin’ their ARs.

The bit of utter stupidity was roundly roasted on Texas Gun Talk forum (which has its share of mouth breathers).

 

[ztejas 43455]

7 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

If not that, a Facebook post of a video of you making not so subtle terroristic threats might also get the job done if the "all police should die" motif he presented online had not already done so.

I mean this is why I'm bringing up conspiracy scenarios. It's very reasonable to believe that certain police wanted him dead. 

[Halohal 498]

Has the involved shooters name been released.

[clapclapclap 9000]

6 minutes ago, Wally Pryor said:

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

Lots of similarities to The Long March.

Quote

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. 

Maybe some parents failed to teach their kids not to play in traffic, but for many of these protests the whole intent is to break the laws/rules/norms.  Some to reflexively vent, "I'm mad so I want everyone else to suffer."  Some as strategy to trigger escalation (create a martyr/Kent State, or at least sympathetic images for the former news media to run with, and thus an excuse to validate future violence from their side)  [  post 100 mentions a milder side of that  https://www.surlyhorns.com/board/index.php?/topic/15694-summer-riotsprotests-damage-tactics-documentation-thread-no-politics-please/page/2/&tab=comments#comment-2423659   ]

But mainly because we have a lot of people (across the political spectrum) who think the laws/rules/norms/common courtesies/etc they don't care for shouldn't apply to them, and jump on any rationalization (no matter how intellectually implausible) to justify noncompliance.  (  I just randomly Googled 'systemic racist traffic lights' and sure enough, here's an article:  https://level.medium.com/the-unintentional-racism-found-in-traffic-signals-b2899c34fefb   )

 

 

[Armybrat 40850]

1 minute ago, ztejas said:

I mean this is why I'm bringing up conspiracy scenarios. It's very reasonable to believe that certain police wanted him dead. 

At Cronk’s behest?

[smuggs 9353]

5 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Give me a hypothetical where it would be defensible for Foster to shoot him in the head with an AK47. Where the driver doesn't have a gun on his person, doesn't accelerate, and doesn't get out of the car. Give me a hypothetical where a jury would think it reasonable for Foster to shoot him with an assault rifle while the car is stopped.

[Dahobbs 17544]

20 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I'm not trying to color anything. I'm trying to make it hinge on you and Brisket's definition and legal treatment of imminent threat to life,

I don't care what the driver does or doesn't say or does or doesn't do in his car short of threatening to set off a bomb (can we agree he didn't threaten this? Audio would have picked it up, right?) or pulling out a gun. Come up with anything you want. Give me a hypothetical where it would be defensible for Foster to shoot him in the head with an AK47. Where the driver doesn't have a gun on his person, doesn't accelerate, and doesn't get out of the car. Give me a hypothetical where a jury would think it reasonable for Foster to shoot him with an assault rifle while the car is stopped.

Driver says "fuck you, I'm going to run you all over" while moving his foot to the pedal. Very likely Foster walks, especially given the driver's previous actions. 

Look, you may just not be cut out to be on a jury. And that is ok. 

P.S. I'm not sure why you have to color "shoot him in the head." That may push things away from self-defense/defense of others since it may indicate more time for deliberate action as opposed to a reaction to an imminent threat. 

Edited July 28, 2020 by Dahobbs

[Gourmand 7774]

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

That would make a lot of sense given the lack of information.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[ztejas 43455]

15 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Well the earth is flat and vaccines do cause Autism so you've got a point.

Look I won't comment any further regarding conspiracies, but flat earth and anti vax is a hell of a leap from what I was positing. 

[AUS-97HORN 11770]

jesus christ, everytime I read this thread it gets weirder because you fucks start turning into Facebook Karens.

 

stop with the conspiracy bullshit  (unless, some info comes out that somehow in that 1 in a million scenario happening for real).

 

lets stop fucking guessing who the driver was or what their profession is..... until it gets released.

 

also, same goes for the BLM medic/ security guy who decided 5 seconds after shots were fired and the car is speeding away to throw rounds into the air where he knows a shitload of people are.   - we dont need to know his profession until it gets relesed or he gave enough info on his facebook page to Dox himself

 

Jesus Christ people, we are supposed to be the rational ones in the world right now, not the hysterical or hypothetical Karens. 

Edited July 28, 2020 by AUS-97HORN

[ztejas 43455]

12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Driver says "fuck you, I'm going to run you all over." Very likely Foster walks, especially given the driver's previous actions

Yeah well we're going to have to agree to disagree here. Maybe tomorrow I'll wake up on whatever planet you're posting from.

13 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

P.S. I'm not sure why you have to color "shoot him in the head." That may push things away from self-defense/defense of others since it may indicate more time for deliberate action as opposed to a reaction to an imminent threat. 

Then toss the specificity. I'm just imagining that it would be fairly likely if you were pointing a gun into a driver side window of a car where his head is below yours. I'm not trying to engage in some tangent argument about murder charges hinging on where the kill shot lands.

[3adays 454]

30 minutes ago, Halohal said:

Has the involved shooters name been released.

I’m surprised no one has released his name. You’d think someone could have used the cars license plate to look up the owner. 

[dcar00 14210]

3 minutes ago, 3adays said:

I’m surprised no one has released his name. You’d think someone could have used the cars license plate to look up the owner. 

I am surprised it hasn't surfaced as well. given the environment I don't mind the police not releasing the name of either shooter but especially the car guy.  it would certainly cause more trouble for the police at this point.

[BrazilHorn 6609]

42 minutes ago, Halohal said:

Has the involved shooters name been released.

I think if you release the driver's name you could bring the twitterverse down on him before all of the facts are fully understood. If once process runs course it ends up he is a white supremacist POS that was carrying the gun in his lap, had posted about "going downtown to fuck shit up" etc etc then yeah put his shit on blast.

If it ends up the guy made a bad turn, honked out of concern, freaked out when a crowd rushed car and saw some big dude strapped with an AK headed his way and reacted then you put this driver at potential risk of harm.

This is just a really terrible case where all the actors involved had a chance to make different decisions along the way. I am looking forward to seeing the facts coming out.

 

 

[Dahobbs 17544]

10 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Yeah well we're going to have to agree to disagree here. Maybe tomorrow I'll wake up on whatever planet you're posting from.

Then toss the specificity. I'm just imagining that it would be fairly likely if you were pointing a gun into a driver side window of a car where his head is below yours. I'm not trying to engage in some tangent argument about murder charges hinging on where the kill shot lands.

Look at the edit to my post. I added an additional factor, driver moving his foot towards the pedal while screaming. I think that puts it over the top to "imminent threat of serious bodily harm."

Anyway, none of this matters because Foster is dead and is not being charged with a crime. 

[Cajun 11705]

33 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

 

 

Jesus Christ people, we are supposed to be the rational ones in the world right now, not the hysterical or hypothetical Karens. 

Wait, you are relying on this board to be "the rational ones in the world right now"?

This is not a solid plan.

Edited July 28, 2020 by Cajun

[Gourmand 7774]

How much faith should we reasonably have that APD will conduct a thorough and fair investigation involving the shooting death of an open carry libertarian AK 47 toting BLM protester in which said protest was in solidarity with Portland? 

 

 

[dcar00 14210]

3 minutes ago, BrazilHorn said:

I think if you release the driver's name you could bring the twitterverse down on him before all of the facts are fully understood. If once process runs course it ends up he is a white supremacist POS that was carrying the gun in his lap, had posted about "going downtown to fuck shit up" etc etc then yeah put his shit on blast.

If it ends up the guy made a bad turn, honked out of concern, freaked out when a crowd rushed car and saw some big dude strapped with an AK headed his way and reacted then you put this driver at potential risk of harm.

This is just a really terrible case where all the actors involved had a chance to make different decisions along the way. I am looking forward to seeing the facts coming out.

 

 

while there is a potential chance that this type of event could happen downtown on a random night in Austin.  guy makes turn(with intent to injure or otherwise), almost hits someone or a few people,  one of them has a gun and approaches driver, driver shoots, etc.  I am most pissed at the city for not controlling this shit. either shut down downtown(or large parts of it) to traffic or get the protesters off the fucking street.  I'll even leave the open carry shit out of it for now,  just control the fucking streets so that cars and people are moving in an orderly manner.

[Cajun 11705]

46 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

That would make a lot of sense given the lack of information.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
 

Or Blek.

[Dilligas 666]

1 hour ago, clapclapclap said:

Lots of similarities to The Long March.

Maybe some parents failed to teach their kids not to play in traffic, but for many of these protests the whole intent is to break the laws/rules/norms.  Some to reflexively vent, "I'm mad so I want everyone else to suffer."  Some as strategy to trigger escalation (create a martyr/Kent State, or at least sympathetic images for the former news media to run with, and thus an excuse to validate future violence from their side)  [  post 100 mentions a milder side of that  https://www.surlyhorns.com/board/index.php?/topic/15694-summer-riotsprotests-damage-tactics-documentation-thread-no-politics-please/page/2/&tab=comments#comment-2423659   ]

But mainly because we have a lot of people (across the political spectrum) who think the laws/rules/norms/common courtesies/etc they don't care for shouldn't apply to them, and jump on any rationalization (no matter how intellectually implausible) to justify noncompliance.  (  I just randomly Googled 'systemic racist traffic lights' and sure enough, here's an article:  https://level.medium.com/the-unintentional-racism-found-in-traffic-signals-b2899c34fefb   )

 

 

I’m getting to the point that if in that situation I’m afraid I’d floor it. Guess that’s why I’m moving to the boonies.

Fuck those road blocking idiots

[dcar00 14210]

15 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Or Blek.

well fuck, thanks a lot.  Now who am I going to riot against/for?

[Cajun 11705]

6 minutes ago, Dilligas said:

I’m getting to the point that if in that situation I’m afraid I’d floor it. Guess that’s why I’m moving to the boonies.

Fuck those road blocking idiots

Cannot be said enough.

I don't care what your cause is.  Even if I'm all for it, get the fuck off the roads/streets and stop blocking traffic.

No, your cause is not "different" and you deserve no special exception.

[0xdeadbeef 1651]

2 hours 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.

I was curious how long it takes to draw while sitting in a car.   So I tried it.  Carrying inside the waistband on the right hip,  with a shirt over the gun, with the holster snapped, and with a seat belt on, it took me 8 seconds to draw the first time.  The seat belt really gets in the way.  It took 6 seconds the second time, and about 2 seconds every time after that when I figured out the motion of popping the seat belt first.   I don't know where the driver was carrying, but even if he had never pulled his gun before while in the car, it wouldn't take much time.    From the video, I don't think we can conclude that he had his gun at the ready.

   

[Cajun 11705]

33 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

How much faith should we reasonably have that APD will conduct a thorough and fair investigation involving the shooting death of an open carry libertarian AK 47 toting BLM protester in which said protest was in solidarity with Portland? 

 

 

How much faith shoud we have in a movement that asks the very entity they want abolished to help them avenge their loss and bring them justice?

Goes both ways.

"Fuck the police!"  Boom Boom "Oh my gawd, call the police!!!"

 

Edited July 28, 2020 by Cajun
and before going into attack mode here, please pause and think about my posting here about the police.

[Gourmand 7774]

How much faith shoud we have in a movement that asks the very entity they want abolished to help them avenge their loss?
Goes both ways.
 

So because there's a segment of society critical of police brutality they don't get equal protection under the law? And the rest of us don't get the benefit of a full and fair investigation?

Cool take.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[Cajun 11705]

Not what I said.  You changed the choice.  I think they should have equal protection, as should all.

The question was whether or not one should have faith.

I'd have very little in either.

 

Edited July 28, 2020 by Cajun

[Helobious 9454]

3 hours 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.

 

Just some advice, you need to get this “same exact threat” stupidity out of your mind. Guns are more deadly than fists. But you’d be completely justified shooting an unarmed person that’s trying to beat the shit out of you. 

[Huckleberry 32878]

1 hour ago, ztejas said:

Yeah well we're going to have to agree to disagree here. Maybe tomorrow I'll wake up on whatever planet you're posting from.

So a verbalized intent to kill and placing yourself in a position to activate the deadly weapon is not worthy of a violent response, but in other scenarios simply standing near somebody else who does something is worthy of a violent response from law enforcement.

You're quite the deep thinker, ain't ya?

[Gene Parmesan 4007]

2 minutes ago, Helobious said:

Just some advice, you need to get this “same exact threat” stupidity out of your mind. Guns are more deadly than fists. But you’d be completely justified shooting an unarmed person that’s trying to beat the shit out of you. 

My fist are registered as lethal weapons. 

[VABuckeye 2472]

1 hour ago, Halohal said:

Has the involved shooters name been released.

Why should it be?  So they can be harassed?  Presumed innocent until proven guilty and all that.

[Armybrat 40850]

57 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Wait, you are relying on this board to be "the rational ones in the world right now"?

This is not a solid plan.

No shit.

Had to bail out of the crazy on another thread. Too much emotion & hatred. I ain’t got time for that shit.

[Cajun 11705]

I keep thinking it's never been this bad, but then I remember some old Mack Brown threads on the previous site and realize this is child's play.

Edited July 28, 2020 by Cajun