Shooting at Austin protest tonight, 1 dead

[Helobious 9,454]

13 minutes ago, VABuckeye said:

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

He hasn’t been arrested yet is why. If he ever gets charged his identity will be released. Everyone else that gets arrested gets their identities published upon arrest, long before any trials or convictions. Not sure why you think this guy should be exempt.

[VABuckeye 2,472]

Because he hasn't been arrested?  Jesus Christ

 

[Helobious 9,454]

3 minutes ago, VABuckeye said:

Because he hasn't been arrested?  Jesus Christ

 

I took your “presumed innocent until proven guilty” comment to mean you wouldn’t want his identity released at any point prior to an actual conviction. I agree it shouldn’t be released until he’s arrested, but once/if that happens he should be treated like anyone else that gets arrested. 

[VABuckeye 2,472]

We agree.  8-)

[Armybrat 40,850]

45 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. 

George Zimmerman?

[washparkhorn 9,939]

The victim was a libertarian activist. Reason has a breakdown of the facts as they know them: 

Quote

 

On Saturday, Foster was exercising his right to open-carry an AK-47 rifle, as allowed by Texas state law, and marching alongside fellow protesters. Just before 10 p.m., the protesters crossed the intersection of Fourth Street and Congress Avenue. That's when a driver, who remains unidentified by the APD, aggressively accelerated his car toward the crowd of protesters. The protesters, including Foster, who was pushing Mitchell through the intersection, approached the vehicle in an attempt to get the driver to stop.

Both witnesses on the scene and the APD confirm that the driver fatally shot Foster from the vehicle and that Foster did not discharge his weapon during the encounter. Another member of the crowd returned fire. The APD says both shooters had licenses to carry.

The fact in dispute is whether Foster pointed his weapon at the driver. Austin Police Chief Brian Manley said on Sunday that the driver maintained Foster had aimed his gun towards him, leading him to shoot. Several witnesses say the opposite is true. They maintain that Foster's rifle was pointed downward. The APD has asked for video and pictures from the scene.

 

https://reason.com/2020/07/27/the-libertarian-party-mourns-garrett-foster-activist-killed-at-a-black-lives-matter-protest/

[quoted for fact pattern, no politics]

[bolverk 29,683]

5 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

 

Serious and honest questions for the gun owners somewhat unrelated to the issue at hand:

In the first photograph, the guy is holding the rifle at what y'all describe as "low ready" and, by logic, would agree that there's an inherent threat of use of force in that it could be shouldered and shot very quickly. Is carrying around a rifle like that public legal in Texas? My assumption is yes.

In the second photograph, the guy has a pistol drawn but also held at a similar "low ready" angle. Is that legal in Texas? My assumption is no.

If they're treated differently by the law, can anyone explain why?

I mean, for all intents and purposes, a pistol in a holster and a rifle strapped to the back of the shoulder are signals that the weapons are available for use if needed but are not necessarily intimidating.

Does any of that make sense?

[bolverk 29,683]

11 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Low ready with a rifle falls under "slung" and carrying a slung rifle is and has been for legal most of Texas history.

The low ready with a pistol which is unholstered is illegal unless you are under threat.

Which is why gun nuts like me and some others that are normally extremely anti gun laws of all type are actually in favor of requiring actual shouldering and disallowed use of low ready under the definition of "slung". 

We talked about it up thread but figured I'd get it tucked away again.

It's the only win I potentially see coming out of this particular situation.

Thanks for the quick response. That's kind of what I figured, and it would seem that the same logic should apply in both instances. I just wasn't sure about the legalities.

ETA: Disallowing low ready rifle positioning in public (as opposed to hunting) sure would clear up any ambiguities about Foster's or another's intent, assuming they were educated gun owners.

I can say a few years ago, walking down Congress during an open carry protest type deal on my lunch break, I saw both shouldered rifles and those at low ready. The former didn't phase me but the latter did make me a bit on edge.

Edited July 29, 2020 by bolverk

[Deej 76,797]

Dude carrying the AK should have had the sense not to go up to the car. At the least, he's probably trying to intimidate the driver, and judging by his news interview that night, that was his intent. 

[bolverk 29,683]

1 minute ago, BurntEyes said:

Quick amusing gun guy side note..

A fit guy with a pump shotgun slung over his left shoulder with the barrel pointing down, blue jeans and a loose fitting non descript t-shirt with tennis shoes and a ball cap is far, far, far more intimating to me than any fat ass slob in Anti-Fa/BLM or Camo and 'Murca garb.

If you see that guy, run, very fast and very far. 

But what if he's left-handed?

jk

[BNB 100]

Based on the small amount we know now,  I'm not sure I would vote him guilty.

Putting myself in his situation, in that short amount of time, if I saw myself being surrounded, I would reach for a gun if I had one.

If I saw a person with a rifle in that position  I would fear for my life.  I would try to drive off, but if people were in front of my car, I may be scared enough to shoot the guy with the rifle.

 

[Trey3216 15,346]

44 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Thanks for the quick response. That's kind of what I figured, and it would seem that the same logic should apply in both instances. I just wasn't sure about the legalities.

The big thing with the type of sling the victim was using is that you can essentially  raise/aim/fire the weapon in an extraordinarily fast manor, and with one hand if necessary.  It works as a guide and a carry/support at the same time, unlike a true shoulder sling where the gun is actually carried on your back/back of shoulder and it takes two hands to do everything I said.  
 

I have one of the quick slings, and only use it when I’m pig hunting 

[RollLeft 5,045]

20 hours ago, Cajun said:

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

Sorry Chad.

It is definitive that the he was at a complete stop and the wheels were not moving.  

[Cajun 11,705]

@Trey3216

Yup, I have a 3 point sling on my 91 and can carry the weapon on my back only to have it pointed downrange with accuracy in about 2 seconds, much to the chagrin of swine...

 

Edited July 29, 2020 by Cajun

[bolverk 29,683]

16 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

The big thing with the type of sling the victim was using is that you can essentially  raise/aim/fire the weapon in an extraordinarily fast manor, and with one hand if necessary.  It works as a guide and a carry/support at the same time, unlike a true shoulder sling where the gun is actually carried on your back/back of shoulder and it takes two hands to do everything I said.  
 

I have one of the quick slings, and only use it when I’m pig hunting 

Yeah, that's kind of how I understand it. Seems the obvious intent is for quick reaction time and why soldiers in the field or on the streets of Fallujah would carry that way. You don't have to be a firearms expert to see the immediate inherent threat or implied message through body language.

That said, it's apparently completely legal (though stupid) for Foster to have carried his weapon that way, and I can certainly see why responsible gun owners would support making that practice illegal in a public setting.

I was just trying to get clarification on the matter as I was catching up on the thread, and the thought struck me when I saw those two photos.

[Foggy Notion 1,202]

5 hours ago, hornbri said:

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

I can’t reveal my source, but it’s solid.

The driver is not a cop. 

[bolverk 29,683]

14 minutes ago, Foggy Notion said:

I can’t reveal my source, but it’s solid.

The driver is not a cop. 

Is there anything at all that you can reveal? The only thing I’ve seen mentioned was that the driver was white, had hairy arms, and therefore was presumably male.

[Halohal 498]

So a lot of "him" and "he" narrative... So we know it's not a female.

[Gourmand 7,774]

I can’t reveal my source, but it’s solid.
The driver is not a cop. 

Military guy driving for Uber on the side?

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[Armybrat 40,850]

6 minutes ago, Halohal said:

So a lot of "him" and "he" narrative... So we know it's not a female.

Dunno... hairy forearms... fitlump?

[washparkhorn 9,939]

The shooter's social media will be scoured for any malice aforethought. 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

1 hour ago, BNB said:

Putting myself in his situation

I would have steered clear of the demonstration. 

Situational awareness.

[Gourmand 7,774]

I would have steered clear of the demonstration. 
Situational awareness.

Likewise if you run a red light aggressively in an area crowded with pedestrians you can see in front of you, don't be a douchebag and use your horn to escalate a situation of your own doing.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[Cajun 11,705]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

Is there anything at all that you can reveal? The only thing I’ve seen mentioned was that the driver was white, had hairy arms, and therefore was presumably male.

Wanna know how I know you've never neen to Olympic Gym?

[dcar00 14,210]

23 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The shooter's social media will be scoured for any malice aforethought. 

he needs to delete it asap not necessarily because it would be malicious but because anything can be twisted and he should probably protect anyone in his immediate circle as well.

[dcar00 14,210]

22 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

I would have steered clear of the demonstration. 

Situational awareness.

was it an announced protest?  did he know there would be a bunch of people walking down congress at 10PM?  I'm not saying he couldn't have sat at the intersection for however long but who knows how he got to that intersection or why he was there.

there was a car in the middle of congress with the protesters on one of the videos.

[Cajun 11,705]

46 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

You keep taunting me with that sweet ass 91 and imma fucking neg your ass.

You'd really neg my ass if you knew what I paid for it (well, that's not mine, I just grabbed that pic of the Googles) at the SAXET in SA right before Clinton's whathaveyou.

I know people who have paid more for a Sig P226.

[washparkhorn 9,939]

8 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

he needs to delete it asap not necessarily because it would be malicious but because anything can be twisted and he should probably protect anyone in his immediate circle as well.

Lock social media. Deleting raises suspicions (and it is all on his permanent record anyway).

6 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

was it an announced protest?  did he know there would be a bunch of people walking down congress at 10PM?  I'm not saying he couldn't have sat at the intersection for however long but who knows how he got to that intersection or why he was there.

there was a car in the middle of congress with the protesters on one of the videos.

Did he know about the protest? If he did (and posted about it), what would be the intent of traveling to such a protest?  

Pure speculation at this point. 

Situational awareness demands you know what is going on where you intend to travel and to steer clear of troubleshoots. I hope he wasn't out looking for trouble. 

_____

What do we know about the shooter who fired at the first shooter as he was fleeing?

[dcar00 14,210]

3 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Lock social media. Deleting raises suspicions (and it is all on his permanent record anyway).

Did he know about the protest? If he did (and posted about it), what would be the intent of traveling to such a protest?  

Pure speculation at this point. 

Situational awareness demands you know what is going on where you intend to travel and to steer clear of troubleshoots. I hope he wasn't out looking for trouble. 

_____

What do we know about the shooter who fired at the first shooter as he was fleeing?

yes lock.  it is quite possible he had no idea there were going to be people walking down Congress at 10pm.  it also possible he did know.  again the biggest issue is the city getting this shit under control, one way or the other.

[bad_teammate 13,196]

2 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

 again the biggest issue is the city getting this shit under control, one way or the other.

This is why it's fucking VITAL to have a justice system trusted by the citizenry.

 

[dcar00 14,210]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

This is why it's fucking VITAL to have a justice system trusted by the citizenry.

 

oh christ, really?  you could just follow existing law and city ordinances...

[bad_teammate 13,196]

Just now, dcar00 said:

oh christ, really?

Yes. Do you not think it's important to have a justice system trusted by the citizenry?

[used2b 249]

20 pages in and we don't know any more than we did Sunday morning?

[dcar00 14,210]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes. Do you not think it's important to have a justice system trusted by the citizenry?

take it to the CR.  the city leaders need to enforce city law and ordinances to keep order downtown so people aren't walking down the middle of the street or cars aren't allowed to drive into non permitted protests.

[Huckleberry 32,861]

2 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

take it to the CR.  the city leaders need to enforce city law and ordinances to keep order downtown so people aren't walking down the middle of the street or cars aren't allowed to drive into non permitted protests.

There was nothing political about his post. Stop trying to silence people who don't agree with you. 

[bad_teammate 13,196]

5 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

the city leaders need to enforce city law and ordinances to keep order downtown so people aren't walking down the middle of the street or cars aren't allowed to drive into non permitted protests.

Yes, they should.

What are you even arguing against? lol

[dcar00 14,210]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

There was nothing political about his post. Stop trying to silence people who don't agree with you. 

hey the white knight...it was absolutely trying to CR the thread by asking the question. furthermore,  I don't give a shit what you think.   we are talking about the incident in downtown where a group of people are walking down the middle of the street and a guy drove towards them.

[Huckleberry 32,861]

I'm not white knighting him, that would be absurd considering he and I disagree frequently. Just pointing out the stupidity of your post. 

Stating that social order requires a justice system that the citizenry trusts is not political. Everyone with any sense acknowledges and accepts that regardless of their political background and affiliation. If you don't want people to take issue with your stupid posts then don't make them.

Edited July 29, 2020 by Huckleberry

[bad_teammate 13,196]

like anyone likes me enough to white knight for me

[workswithseed 2,109]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

like anyone likes me enough to white knight for me

Eh.

[washparkhorn 9,939]

Anyone know why the second shooter was released? Firing at a fleeing vehicle appears a bit reckless to me. 

[Gourmand 7,774]

Anyone know why the second shooter was released? Firing at a fleeing vehicle appears a bit reckless to me. 

It was an orgy of stupid that night. Reckless asshole chl driver, cosplay libertarian protester with an AK, and reactionary third individual firing at the car as it drives away. Good job guys. With the eight shots fired it's remarkable that nobody else was killed or injured.

I'm curious if any of these open carry video game nerds every catch any shit from fellow protesters. My wife and I attended the rally at Huston Tillotson back in early June and I will say that if I had seen anyone open carrying an assault rifle, I would politely express my disapproval and not want to be anywhere near that person. That's not consistent with the reform message IMHO and has no purpose except to flex 2A unnecessarily.



Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[Victor Lazlo 1,777]

1 hour ago, washparkhorn said:

Situational awareness demands you know what is going on where you intend to travel and to steer clear of troubleshoots. I hope he wasn't out looking for trouble. 

“Situational awareness demands”?

Are you fucking kidding me?

For the last 100 years plus, you could drive through Austin on any Saturday night and expect to not be molested by a mob walking through the streets and impeding traffic illegally. 

Austin is a destination for a lot of people. It could have been any one of us. It could have been me, from out of town and trying to get to where I needed to go. How the fuck would I have expected to encounter an unsanctioned protest march? 

Sad deal all around, and shouldn’t have happened. But to blame it on the driver for not having “situational awareness” that he shouldn’t have needed in Austin fucking Texas , for God’s sake  - unbelievable. 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

5 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

if I had seen anyone open carrying an assault rifle, I would politely express my disapproval and not want to be anywhere near that person

100% agree. Uncontrollable risk to all nearby. 

[washparkhorn 9,939]

3 minutes ago, Victor Lazlo said:

“Situational awareness demands”?

Are you fucking kidding me?

For the last 100 years plus, you could drive through Austin on any Saturday night and expect to not be molested by a mob walking through the streets and impeding traffic illegally. 

Austin is a city now, not a college town. Time marches on. When you travel, check ahead. Glance at their local newspaper online to see what is up. Cities have a lot of drama. Best to be prepared. If driving and you encounter marchers crossing a street against the light, slow down and stop - and put on your emergency lights to try and slow down traffic behind you. Do not drive into a crowd of people in Pampa or Austin. 

And for the record, I am not blaming the driver. That was a clusterfuck of bad decisions. Open carrying of a long gun in public is horrific judgment in my opinion. The driver not waiting for the crowd to pass is concerning. A motor vehicle is deadly. When driving around soft and fragile humans, extra care is required. 

[4th and 5 4,914]

On 7/27/2020 at 10:13 PM, BurntEyes said:

It comes down to whether or not you feel threatened while sitting in your vehicle.

Couple of opinions one from legal counselor one from a gun rights guy. From the legal position some important points relating to this situation.

Protection of One’s Own Property

Under Texas Penal Code §9.42, a person may use deadly force against another to protect land or property if:

1. He is the owner of the land;
2. He reasonably believes using the force is immediately necessary to prevent arson, burglary, or robbery; and
3. He reasonably believes that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means.

What is the Difference Between Deadly Force and Threat of Force?

Threat of force is when a person displays a weapon as a threat, showing that they will use deadly force to cause death or serious bodily injury if necessary. Texas Penal Code §9.04.  Threat of Force is a precursor to the use of Deadly Force.

For example, a landowner, on his property, sees a trespasser running towards him. If the landowner decides to turn in such a way to display his holstered, loaded gun which causes the trespasser to run off the property, Texas law says this is likely a justifiable threat of force.

When is Defense of Another Person Justifiable?

A person is justified in using force or deadly force to protect a third party if he believes intervention is immediately necessary and would be justified in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force in the same circumstance.

However, use of force is not justified if in the use of force to protect a third party, the person gets the circumstances wrong and ends up seriously injuring or killing an innocent third party.

Texas law provides for a justifiable defense at trial when using deadly force if the person claiming self defense:

1. Reasonably believed the deadly force was immediately necessary;
2. Had a legal right to be on the property;
3. Did not provoke the person against whom deadly force was used; and
4. Was not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force was used.

The Castle Doctrine: Understanding Self-Defense in Texas

https://www.bhwlawfirm.com/deadly-force-self-defense-in-texas/

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/nation-world/gun-expert-reminds-texans-of-castle-law-protections/507-626971486

Brisket made the point clear earlier, but this case revolves almost entirely around determining and establishing if the driver did or did NOT provoke. 

I am of the opinion that it's not clear that he did. You and I differ on that opinion. If there is social media or other items that illustrate ill intent of the driver prior it's a game changer. As would any additional video evidence showing that it was a clearly and indisputably a provocative move.

Investigation will look at the drivers social media and any video that is available anywhere (if they do their job right). 

My instinct tells me that it will need to be overwhelming for the DAs to act against the driver.  They do so without indisputable evidence, there is a huge firestorm of shit coming from the gun rights nuts and a lot other folks that are not sympathetic to BLM. In Texas, that is a LOT of people. On the other hand, there will be backlash from the other side if they don't.

It doesn't end well, either way.

 

 

There are multiple instances of “that’s not the law” in this post.

Try quoting the Penal Code if you want to talk about the law, or better yet, leave the law to the lawdawgs

 

 

14 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

 

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

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

 

Yeah, me too. All of that  

 

14 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

BT see the disorderly conduct statute as it related to firearms, it’ll help you wrap your mind around the legal issues

 

13 hours ago, ztejas said:

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

 

Tha’s utter bullshit number one and number two you couldn’t cite relevant precedent if your life depended on it

 

12 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

Counselor, the time you argue with burnteyes about the law is time you will never get back

 

12 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

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

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

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

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

5) Agreed

6) Agreed

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

 

Stay in your lane, you’re a legal lightweight compared to Dahobbs 

 

8 hours 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.

 

 

5 hours ago, bolverk said:

Serious and honest questions for the gun owners somewhat unrelated to the issue at hand:

In the first photograph, the guy is holding the rifle at what y'all describe as "low ready" and, by logic, would agree that there's an inherent threat of use of force in that it could be shouldered and shot very quickly. Is carrying around a rifle like that public legal in Texas? My assumption is yes.

In the second photograph, the guy has a pistol drawn but also held at a similar "low ready" angle. Is that legal in Texas? My assumption is no.

If they're treated differently by the law, can anyone explain why?

I mean, for all intents and purposes, a pistol in a holster and a rifle strapped to the back of the shoulder are signals that the weapons are available for use if needed but are not necessarily intimidating.

Does any of that make sense?

 

Once again see DOC-firearm for clarity. There is no inherent conflict with carrying long gun legally and someone else’s reasonable belief that force or deadly force is immediately necessary. Once you enter into “a manner calculated to alarm” which I would consider “low ready” to be among those circumstances, you enter the realm of circumstances where another might feel self defense or defense of another is justified, and you may get your ticket punched like Garrett did

 

The carrying of handguns is government by another chapter of the Penal Code and you must have it holstered unless the use of force is justified, or you are on your own premises, and there are other exceptions like range, hunting, etc. But you cannot walk around in public with an unholstered handgun, with or without an LTC.

[Dahobbs 17,534]

7 hours ago, dcar00 said:

he needs to delete it asap not necessarily because it would be malicious but because anything can be twisted and he should probably protect anyone in his immediate circle as well.

I know you changed this to lock in your next post, but I just want to reiterate what a terrible idea this is. Destroying evidence of a crime is illegal. https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-37-09.html. 

Quote

 

A person commits an offense if, knowing that an investigation or official proceeding is pending or in progress, he . . . alters, destroys, or conceals any record, document, or thing with intent to impair its verity, legibility, or availability as evidence in the investigation or official proceeding;  . . . 

A person commits an offense if the person . . . knowing that an offense has been committed, alters, destroys, or conceals any record, document, or thing with intent to impair its verity, legibility, or availability as evidence in any subsequent investigation of or official proceeding related to the offense.

 

 

[Cajun 11,705]

Hmmmmmm.  Wonder if I should put every opinion I have on social media?

Decisions decisions...

[52-80 19,159]

8 hours ago, Halohal said:

So a lot of "him" and "he" narrative... So we know it's not a female.

what if she identifies as a he?

[52-80 19,159]

10 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

Quick amusing gun guy side note..

A fit guy with a pump shotgun slung over his left shoulder with the barrel pointing down, blue jeans and a loose fitting non descript t-shirt with tennis shoes and a ball cap is far, far, far more intimating to me than any fat ass slob in Anti-Fa/BLM or Camo and 'Murca garb.

If you see that guy, run, very fast and very far. 

In Sicily, women are more dangerous than shotguns