Shooting at Austin protest tonight, 1 dead

[4th and 5 4914]

14 hours ago, ButtFumble said:

 

if it turns out the person in the car is not charged then in my opinion the "medic facebook hero" should be charged to the fullest extent of the law

it is just like I said about seeing a group of assholes fighting in the mall and guns come out.....if you as a CHL holder think you are going to jump in and "defend the good" then you better be ready to face the consequences if it turns out you were not defending anything other than your feeling that you having a gun means you can start shooting at anything and everything that YOU see as a threat

it is laughable that a group of idiots protesting "police violence" are suddenly so ready to pull guns and shoot at anything and everything they see as a threat and they expect to not face much of any consequence for doing so if it turns out they were in fact not on the side of "the good or innocent"

sure some will say that police are "professionals" and thus they should be above making mistakes that others will be given leeway for......but those same people making that argument are often the ones that want the police to be more human......but they do not allow the police to have the human ability to make a mistake in a stressful violence situation.....but of course when they as a random asshole with a gun get involved in something they are free to make all the mistakes they wish because well "thought was doin good"

 

14 hours ago, ButtFumble said:

not really IMO (I am not sure how the law will see it though)

you have a responsibility as a gun owner and a CHL holder to KNOW you are facing a real threat to your life or the life of an INNOCENT person before you draw and fire

if the person in the car is not charged then it was because they shot someone that was a threat to them.....thus the medic was not shooting to defend an innocent person they were shooting to defend a criminal and you should not get a pass for getting involved in that and using your gun

if you walk into a Cstore and see someone with a gun beating the shit out of someone else and you shoot that person with the gun and it turns out they were the clerk that was beating the shit out of a robber that has or had a gun or other weapon then you should be charged

 

13 hours ago, ButtFumble said:

although there is a better than should be chance the medic does not get charged I do not believe there is really anything in the law that allows one to draw a gun and fire at someone that turns out to be innocent of any crime even if they believed at the time they might be seeing a crime

going further down the same path if yet another bystander was armed and saw without a doubt that the dead guy did on fact aim the gun at the car driver and was a clear threat to them and the driver had the full right to defend against it....and then that bystander sees the medic shooting at the car driver....does that bystander then get to draw their gun and shoot and kill the medic?.....because after all from there to that bystander it would appear that a large violent group of people are further trying to kill an innocent car driver

and where does it go from there?

when you carry a gun as a civilian you have a high responsibility to know who you are shooting at and why and that is why anyone with an ounce of common sense and even a single functioning brain cell would not be armed with these protesters or any others and of they were it would be concealed and for PERSONAL defense or the defense of people you 100% know and are with and know the intentions of.....it would not be too defend some other random armed asshole that you THINK might be in the right

 

Horrible takes.

This is clearly not the law in Texas. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

2 hours ago, Cajun said:

Did you read The Police Chief’s quote Al?

 

I’m not sure how many different ways you want this explained brother.

A name, like the ones APD routinely publishes for those arrested. We know plenty already of the guy killed. 

[Armybrat 40850]

1 hour ago, Fondren & Main said:

Want to get a Hellcat.  All the pistols I have are too big. 😣

No P365?

[Neonmoon 38129]

Just now, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Because it could possibly make Burnt Eyes shut up.

Fine, I will go work. Dammit. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

22 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Why is that?

Because it could possibly make Burnt Eyes shut up.

[Halohal 498]

What's the handgun?

 

 

 

[MirrOlure 14786]

Would one afraid of being hit by a car logically approach the car? No.

That is your assumption. I've seen many people who were initially afraid of being hit by a car, who after it stopped, approached said car to curse the car driver. 

The facts are posted. You have zero evidence to support any ill intent on the part of the driver other than your opinion.

You have zero evidence to support any ill intent of a man approaching a car with an open carry firearm pointed towards the ground. 

Being made nervous by a car doesn't legally give one a right to approach the car with a firearm drawn aggressively particularly if that car is stopped.

You keep using the word aggressively, that is your opinion, not a fact. 

Being approached aggressively by an armed person in your car does given one logical reason to fear for their life.

I agree, but again, that is an opinion, not a fact. 

Your basing all of your positions on made up, fabricated, imaginary things. You're addressing nothing with actual facts of the incident. 

This again, is your opinion, not a fact. I don't believe you actually know the difference at this point. 

You're reaching deep in your imagination to create a narrative that fits your political position. 

I'm not creating a narrative, I'm am debating the facts of the case. Another fact, I initially stated an opinion, and after being presented with a good argument of fact, I conceded I was wrong earlier in this thread. That is what adults do. They listen to each other and try to look a the facts. 

I'm finished addressing your inability to differentiate facts and reality from your fiction.

Take care

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

 

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

 

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

[Armybrat 40850]

Point to ponder...

It really hasn’t been determined who is actually the “victim” in this tragic incident. 

If the dead guy was the aggressor making threatening gestures with his AK at a frightened motorist who was surrounded by a mob beating on his car, then he (Garret) could be referred to as the perpetrator.

On the other hand if it can be shown that the driver did act aggressively and was a further danger to the mob, then it could go the other way.

Has anyone revealed if there is security camera footage from businesses around that intersection that might provide more clarity of the total event? Frost Bank right there surely should have some decent video equipment.

Edited July 27, 2020 by Armybrat

[MNLonghornFUKM 8817]

[Rougarou 594]

Just now, Armybrat said:

Point to ponder...

It really hasn’t been determined who is actually the “victim” in this tragic incident. 

If the dead guy was the aggressor making threatening gestures with his AK at a frightened motorist who was surrounded by a mob beating on his car, then he (Garret) could be referred to as the perpetrator.

On the other hand if it can be shown that the driver did act aggressively and was a further danger to the mob, then it could go the other way.
 

Exactly. And in the likely outcome that both sides acted foolishly and were complicit in ratcheting up the ante to life/death, then it's a horrible outcome because it was senseless. Even if the protester is 100% at fault, it's tragic, let me be clear. Because emotions/miscommunication and misinterpretation of ideas is what got us here.

Just sad in general. I know it's the protesters right to hit the streets and act however they want, because they are typically on the right side of the issues and have that extra gear from fighting the good fight, but like with cyclists, they have to realize that most drivers don't care about them or their takes and just want to get to their Point B.

[BayouBill 835]

Why the fuck do people post pictures of their guns on social media? Especially platforms where it really has their name and picture. Advertising that shit is a horrible idea for at least a couple reasons.

[Armybrat 40850]

Come at me brah...

[Armybrat 40850]

Please make sure your humor detector is on.

[Fudbelty 2788]

Same here. Inception.

[Fudbelty 2788]

Come at me brah...

I call bullshit. Photo is not upside down.

[MirrOlure 14786]

I call bullshit. Photo is not upside down.

And there’s no hamburger, fries and McNugget pizza in it either

[Js1 85346]

9 minutes ago, BayouBill said:

Why the fuck do people post pictures of their guns on social media? Especially platforms where it really has their name and picture. Advertising that shit is a horrible idea for at least a couple reasons.

Bc it’s uncouth to just straight up post a pic of their tiny dick 

[Wally Pryor 5261]

1 hour ago, cabowabo said:

Act like a fucking idiot, get yourself killed, start a gofundme page, profit.   What a country.

Don't forget "become a martyr".   Other than that you've covered.

The country is so, so fucked up.  

 

[Armybrat 40850]

6 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Bc it’s uncouth to just straight up post a pic of their tiny dick 

Yeh, don’t want you to die laughing. 

[Pam Cummings 9644]

19 hours ago, immamac said:

No one is arguing that the driver didn't need to kill this guy. It's obvious to everyone that we would rather no shots have been fired and asshole driver gets a ticket or goes to jail for being an idiot. 

People are saying there is no way with the current facts that you could say this guy is guilty of murder without reasonable doubt. The ONLY person shot had a fucking AK-47 and ran up on the car. 

Who cares if the guy shot his rifle or not, he had a fucking rifle and swarmed another dudes car with a group of aggressive people. That's enough for reasonable doubt with any jury that would have me or a lot of people I know on it. 

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

 

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

 

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

[Armybrat 40850]

Carrying a rifle openly & without a license in most urban & rural areas has been legal in Texas since the 19th century.

 

[Brisketexan 105147]

You are too fucking obtuse to “analyze the facts of the case.” In any criminal homicide case in this scenario, you fail to grasp that it’s the driver who is presumed innocent, not the armed protester, and it is HIS actions which must be proven to be criminal, beyond any reasonable doubt. Not the other way around.
 
And someone more seasoned in criminal law than I can correct me, but I THINK his burden of proof on justification is mere “reasonableness.”
 
Dumbass giving an interview earlier that evening flippantly marginalizing is carrying an assault rifle, coupled with that nano-second snapshot of him with the gun in low ready while he and dozens swarmed the car.....yeah, barring some as of yet unknown evidence of intent or extreme negligence by the driver....and aside from political grandstanding, this “case” doesn’t ever get past step 1.

One of the essential facts is going to be breaking down the driver’s actions in turning onto Congress and into the crowd. If it was an aggressive act that meets the legal definition of “provocation” (thanks for reminding us of the right term, 4th and 5), then he the defense of self-defense will likely not be available to him.
It’s clear that he DID kill a guy, so it’s absolutely homicide. The question is whether it was an act of self-defense as defined by the law. And the law generally doesn’t provide for that defense for the person who provoked the conflict.

I don’t get to aggressively point a deadly weapon at you, and then shoot you and claim self defense when you draw on me in response.

Whether that’s what happened here is a fact question. And yes, if there was no provocation, then the dead man was the person who started the aggression, and the driver had a good self defense case.

[Pam Cummings 9644]

1 minute ago, Armybrat said:

Carrying a rifle openly & without a license in most urban & rural areas has been legal in Texas since the 19th century.

 

I get it, i'm agreeing that the guy had every right. If he shot and killed the driver of the car, saying he feared for his life, he would be justified i think.

[GHOSTUSER 361]

23 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Carrying a gun might be asshole behavior, or shooting one, but protesting in the road is asshole behavior?

Did they have parade permit like they're required under the law for a march? There are laws governing protests on streets yet they're not being enforced and we are allowing them to continue. Limit it to 1 street march with permit parade a week and the rest of the time do it on the fucking sidewalk.

Edited July 27, 2020 by Iconoclast Texan

[Armybrat 40850]

Who knows what evil lurks in men’s minds?

[Armybrat 40850]

2 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Did they have parade permit like they're required under the law for a march? 

Apparently not.

Maybe the protest organizer could be liable to a civil suit?

Edited July 27, 2020 by Armybrat

[Fondren & Main 6718]

47 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

No P365?

Looking at that also.  Really want to get a .458 SOCOM next though. 

[GHOSTUSER 361]

5 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

Apparently not.

Maybe the protest organizer could be liable to a civil suit?

Requesting a Street Event

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

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

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

Edited July 27, 2020 by Iconoclast Texan

[Deej 76797]

3 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

the rest of the time do it on the fucking sidewalk.

They just put in the bike lanes on Congress. Protest in the bike lanes. 

[Armybrat 40850]

6 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

I get it, i'm agreeing that the guy had every right. If he shot and killed the driver of the car, saying he feared for his life, he would be justified i think.

The “gun culture” is pretty divided on the issue of openly carrying rifles (particularly the “black” ones) in urban areas. We all recognize the right, but a lot of “us” think it highly inadvisable and unnecessary. Am fine with open carry of holstered handguns, but never would do it myself.

[Armybrat 40850]

4 minutes ago, Deej said:

They just put in the bike lanes on Congress. Protest in the bike lanes. 

How many car lanes are on Congress now?

[williemackgarza 1826]

Shooter was def well trained, to fire from a vehicle out the window and hit his intended target is a skill not often learned.
But stupidness all around. Like the guy who stops the innocent driving bystander (that makes the video feed from the alt view). That idiot has no right to stop traffic. Then shooter gets into the block and this traffic blocker and all the ptotesters run towards the shooters car like a mob.
Then suprise when shots ring out.
The dead guy knew why he was open packing, same as anyone that does so in public. To put everyone on motice that they mean business and intimidation. Its stupid to do it because if shit escalates you leave yourself only 1 option. The sling the dead guy wore is not made to shoulder the weapon but to keep it at all times in the low ready position. A positition meant so you can quickly get into shooting mode. My opinion is it looks like some of the protesters like dead guy were security for the group, you can see a few guys in black knee pads and vests out front appear to be carrying (maybe, not sure). They look like they are providing half ass security. Shit hit the fan with the car and they all charged towards the car looking to handle the situation. Shooter sees low ready rifle from his seated position and it could look like barrel is pointed at him (which it very well could have been). Shooter shoots, game over.
Shooter is prolly fucked with the Travis Co DAs office no matter what APD does.
I get they want to protest, but why so late in the dark?? Just a recipe for disaster.

[Gene Parmesan 4007]

8 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

I get it, i'm agreeing that the guy had every right. If he shot and killed the driver of the car, saying he feared for his life, he would be justified i think.

Probably.  I don't know if the driver had his gun out and drawn long before he shot, but presumably it probably wouldn't be a stretch for either party to claim a reasonable fear for their life.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

40 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Why exactly do you want me to shut up? 

Well, it's not because I disagree with you, I actually agree with a lot of your points.  And it's not because you like to argue, this  is the internet after all, and I appreciate your passion.  So I guess it's that reading through a thread that you've become "invested" in is like being locked in a closet with a coked-up chihuahua.  

[Brisketexan 105147]

2 minutes ago, Deej said:

They just put in the bike lanes on Congress. Protest in the bike lanes. 

Well, that does miss the point.  As part of a larger strategy, many protests aim for civil disobedience.  Note, that is NOT violence, causing property damage, etc.  But it was "illegal" to sit-in at a lunch counter, to refuse to go to the back of the bus, to march on certain streets in Birmingham, etc.  The goal is to do so peacefully, but not in compliance with the law.  There is literally a playbook on, say, sitting in an area too close to the White House, and the cops tell you if you don't leave, you'll be arrested -- and you say you won't leave, and they arrest you.  You don't resist, they don't need to beat you, it's civil disobedience.

None of which provides legal justification, in any way, under any law that I'm aware of, for the use of deadly force.  If someone wants to protest whatever issue they want by sitting in the middle of the street in front of your car, they are absolutely breaking the law, and can be arrested.  But you don't get to run over them, saying "hey, they were breaking the law -- it's on them."  If a person is sitting in the road in front of you, you see them, and consciously decide to run them over, you committed murder, regardless of the legality of their sitting.

We don't know if that's what happened here.  But there are a bunch of folks who have effectively said, assuming that it was, tough shit, they were breaking the law, so the driver was justified in running his car through them.  And that's just not the law.  If that's what the driver did, he committed assault with a deadly weapon, and when the people assaulted responded with force, he will not have the defense of self-defense available because he provoked the confrontation.  Again, we're discussing hypotheticals, because the facts and evidence are clearly still developing.

[Deej 76797]

3 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

How many car lanes are on Congress now?

They turned the outside lanes into bike lanes, so it went from three each direction into two. If you're taking a right turn off of Congress, beware the cyclist continuing straight. 

[Wally Pryor 5261]

9 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Did they have parade permit like they're required under the law for a march? 

Lulz.  Permit?  In July 2020, in Austin?  Serious? 

Foster's death won't be the last time something like this happens in Austin.   As long as Congress and other main thoroughfares are allowed to be gathering points for protests without barricades, structure or anything else to  separate them from cars, shit's going to happen.      Permit?   Oh, no need. You're fine. You're involved in the cause.   Vehicular traffic?   Who gives a shit.  Let them figure it out.  I hear that guy Musk is making cars fly now, anyway.

This is what we get having 11 unbridled lunatics running the city.  It's a group hellbent on redefining idiocy and insanity at every turn, and somehow managing to succeed. 

[Deej 76797]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, that does miss the point. 

Of course you miss the snark. 

[MillerEP 30455]

14 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

Who knows what evil lurks in men’s minds?

[Pam Cummings 9644]

11 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

The “gun culture” is pretty divided on the issue of openly carrying rifles (particularly the “black” ones) in urban areas. We all recognize the right, but a lot of “us” think it highly inadvisable and unnecessary. Am fine with open carry of holstered handguns, but never would do it myself.

I'm not a hater of guns. I just think that people like open rifle carry guy draw negative attention towards gun ownership and enthusiasm. I am not a fan of open carry rifle guy.

Edited July 27, 2020 by Pam Cummings

[ztejas 43454]

1 hour ago, Halohal said:

Saw the fund me page... Doesn't a portion of funds raised go to the website owner's? At last glance... And why disable new donations?

 

Official Garrett Foster Memorial Fund

$108,534 raised

 

Share

The organizer has currently disabled new donations to this fundraiser.

I just threw up in my mouth 

[StruggleBus 3922]

13 minutes ago, Deej said:

They just put in the bike lanes on Congress. Protest in the bike lanes. 

Protesters vs cyclists would be fantastic

[Halohal 498]

https://www.tiktok.com/@luludeadly/video/6853704428550212869

First hand account but then back tracks... 

[Gourmand 7774]

1 hour ago, BurntEyes said:

 

I agree that the driver was probably scared. I'm uncertain if he was angry.

 

You can't speculate about that based upon the five second honking of the horn following his illegal right turn? Since we're talking about facts we know, that's a fact that you've omitted from your description of events. Or is your speculation about motive only reserved for eyewitnesses and the victim and not the shooter? 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

56 minutes ago, BayouBill said:

Why the fuck do people post pictures of their guns on social media?

Here's a pic of mine if anyone asks:

 

[StruggleBus 3922]

4 minutes ago, Halohal said:

https://www.tiktok.com/@luludeadly/video/6853704428550212869

First hand account but then back tracks... 

Garrett sounds like a hero!

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

3 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

I'm going to point this out again because clearly people enjoy ignoring or obfuscating facts in this case.

Nobody, not a single person, that is zero people, none at all, were, based on the videos we've seen, and all of the information from the protesters and police were hit by a car in this incident.

None, ZERO, nobody based on all available information, was hit by a car.

And no one in the car was hit by a bullet

It is subjective and inaccurate to claim to know the drivers motives. Nobody knows that reality. The actions prior to the shooting of the driver are easily disputable as to whether or not they were aggressive. I saw it as non-aggressive as did many others, some saw it the other way. None of us know whether or not there was any intention or motive by the driver to harm anyone for sure with his car. If there WAS intention, the driver really sucked at that aspect because again, I clearly state, no injury or reports have surfaced of ANYONE being hit by a car. 

No one knows the intention of the victim. If it was to shoot the driver, he sucked at it.

What we do know for sure is a man armed with a carbine aggressively approached the car with said carbine at low ready. It's in dispute as to whether or not he actually pointed the gun at the car. Either way, it's not an unreasonable assumption that someone approaching a car aggressively with a rifle at low ready might be perceived as a threat. The person that did this is already on video expressing what can easily be perceived as aggressive intentions. The video exist. That is fact.

The driver's actions can easily be perceived as "aggressive intentions" as well. We know the victim's identity and personal information. We don't with the shooter who conceivably has already scrubbed his social media.

There have been other instances of protestors shooting at vehicles elsewhere in the country. It's not impossible that the driver was aware of this. The other shooting by protestors are fact.

There are instances of vehicles driving through protesters. It's not impossible the protesters are aware the number of people killed by right wing violence dwarfs that of those killed by left wing violence.

A person turned into an area where protestors were present. This is fact.

The person who aggressively approached the vehicle with a rifle at low ready was shot. This is fact.

The driver turned from an area with more protestors to less protestors. This can be seen in the video. There is some interpretation but there is certainly, by available evidence, support for that interpretation.

The driver prior to the shooting was at a full stop in the vehicle. This is fact.

Another person in the crowd fired shots, by the shooters own account, at the car. This is fact.

Wait. You're claiming the driver was shot at first?

Nobody was hit by a car based on all available information. This is fact.

We covered this in my first comment.

All else beyond these facts is absolutely and completely suppositions based on opinion and NOT on any facts. Its all fiction at this point, not reality.

Seems like everyone being armed in this was crucial in escalating this into a deadly incident. 

[Brisketexan 105147]

8 minutes ago, williemackgarza said:

To put everyone on motice that they mean business and intimidation. Its stupid to do it because if shit escalates you leave yourself only 1 option. The sling the dead guy wore is not made to shoulder the weapon but to keep it at all times in the low ready position. A positition meant so you can quickly get into shooting mode.

Hear hear!  You're singing my song.

It's actually a bit ironic - the MORE a person knows and understands firearms (as opposed to many anti-gun folks who have never touched one), the more that person looks at people with a locked and loaded rifle at a low ready as a clear and present threat.  That's a person who is carrying a weapon in a manner that indicates his intent to use it at a moment's notice.  As a person on the receiving end of that, I know that my reaction time to that threat is pretty damned narrow....which would make me quick on the trigger in response.  Which amps up the chances of a violent escalation significantly.

Bring a gun to a potential fight and let everyone see it, and every fight becomes a gunfight.

14 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

I'm not a hater of guns. I just think that people like open rifle carry guy draw negative attention towards gun ownership and enthusiasm. I am not a fan of open carry rifle guy.

And yep.  When the experience of the bulk of the public with "gun owners" is this sort of crap, it does none of us any favors.

 

24 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

So I guess it's that reading through a thread that you've become "invested" in is like being locked in a closet with a coked-up chihuahua.  

Product of our times, amigo...a product of our times.

[Hate 20108]

 
You can't speculate about that based upon the five second honking of the horn following his illegal right turn? Since we're talking about facts we know, that's a fact that you've omitted from your description of events. Or is your speculation about motive only reserved for eyewitnesses and the victim and not the shooter? 

What other way does a driver communicate with pedestrians? Can you tell the difference between an “angry I’m going to run you over honk” and an “excuse me I really want to get out the way to allow y’all to continue honk”?

[ChickenSandwich 9836]

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

I know the driver has stated to the police that the protester pointed a gun at him, but does the image below show a barrel pointed up?  Will any charge depend on if one can prove the gun barrel was raised towards the car? 

 

Setting aside this is a single image..

If the barrel is indeed pointed down in this image can we also assume his hand is on the grip of the lower based on his right arm position?

Neither of which proves he pointed the gun before or after this photo. 
 

Also, if the driver had ill intent or panicked, would be shocked he somehow only hit the man with a rifle in a crazy mob of people surrounding him. I’m sure the police are envious. 

Edited July 27, 2020 by ChickenSandwich