One person dead in shooting at protest in Downtown Austin

That guy will be forgotten within 14 days. He will be Just some guy who bled out in the street playing the tough guy. Makes me think of all those gang members who Die young in the street trying to play the macho man across America. The think carrying a gun empowers you to “take less crap” when in fact it demands you take more.

 

I did NOT judge Foster's words in and of themselves as a reason to kill the traitor: His actions depriving a human being of their civil rights while pointing a murderous weapon at him, lost Foster any right of self-defense during his commission of a CRIME.

Don't commit a crime, like Foster was committing more than one, and expect the right of self-defense.

YOU do not have the right to deprive me of my civil rights at the point of a gun. Do you understand?

 

This is actually an article that explains what happened, including the shots heard.
https://www.kxan.com/news/local/aus...nto-the-deadly-shooting-at-an-austin-protest/

Makes sense. You don't point your gun at someone, especially in Texas, unless you are going to use it. Else, they will defend themselves. I could actually see more charges being brought against the guy who fired at the car as it left since that was not a self defense situation.

 

We don't know who the driver is. You are defending someone who possibly saw the Friday video of Foster talking about pu$$ies and decided to be a vigilante.

I'm waiting for more facts.

 

Foster would be alive today if he wasn't so predictable, to be at that precise car, what a neat excuse.

If the driver saw the video of Foster saying he wouldn't shoot a cop because he might die, implying all ******* are fair game, then the driver would have more of a reason to be afraid at being confronted by the terrorist.

I don't need more facts, I want to save lives by telling the puke terrorists what is going to happen if they keep being terrorists.

 

Driver could be a "tough guy" with a vendetta and an "I'll show him 'pu$$y'" attitude. We don't know.

I'm waiting for facts.

This guy reflects my attitude: Sit back. Wait for facts before picking a side.

 

If we look at the "whole picture," we have to consider the guy dragged out of his vehicle and a brick smashed into his head and his mouth spray painted because he was white, while the police did nothing. The "whole picture" includes every single act committed in all these so-called "protests," everywhere in the country by these groups, and the failure of police to act. Want to claim a side is innocent, get the fracking hell out of the street, do not hit cars, do not bust car windows, do not drag people out of cars, and do not march with a Party of Treason that does those things repeatedly for all to see, leave the gun at home if you want to break the law and challenge ******* (by pointing the gun directly at the car like Foster did before he was at the side of the car), and obey the laws like the little hand sign...

 

What happened in other places has no relation to the details of this case. Relative to "everywhere in the country", the Austin protests have been mainly peaceful.

You do you. I'll defend your free speech, too.

I think the driver will probably be cleared on self defense, but I'm waiting for facts.

 

What happened in other places goes to the pattern of behavior of all, whether it be a party or faction, those not card carrying members attending their functions (protests...), or those having to live near those functions and drive through them. If the Austin protests have been mainly peaceful why did Foster bring a gun? You know why he came armed, he was bringing into Austin what happened in other places.

Maybe Austin cops are racists who like to shoot black people, and BLM should have started there. One of the times I drove through Texas they were hunting for an AX murderer, the police were nice, but that was a little scary considering the chainsaw thing; one of the guys in boot camp from Texas admitted he had sex with sheep. I don't really know what is normal for Texans.

Garrett Foster's mentality with regard to transferring what happened in other places to Austin and his carrying a gun is 100% relevant, as it is for all those that surrounded the car...as they did everywhere else, where they beat people with 2x4s...and that goes to the driver having reasonable FEAR of his life!

 

Meh. I'm not a collectivist, so I don't believe in "patterns of behavior" that fit everyone in a party, faction, race or sex. That's stereotyping, which I try to avoid. Similarly, I don't have a sense that Austin has the same "personality" (yet) as Seattle or Portland.

Foster was apparently armed at every rally which he attended all 50 days. Police knew him. If he were a troublemaker within the group or with police, they'd probably have tossed him (group) or arrested him (police). His being armed didn't become relevant except for a 10-15 second period Saturday night. Foster's was the first death this year in Austin which was even remotely related to the protests.

I hope the incident was nothing more than unfortunate timing of two armed people meeting at the wrong place and time. If the driver hadn't turned into the protesters, Foster would be alive. If Foster hadn't been armed at a peaceful protest, he would be alive. Both men were licensed to carry and legally carrying. Sometimes bad things happen, a collision of bad luck.

I don't really see the incident from a political lens, as much as two individuals each made a bad choice and one of them ended up not surviving.

 

Being you don't know Foster personally or witnessed his personality, manerisms or attitudes during those 50 days, you really cannot make any judgement at all. For all we know, he could have become more and more angry as the days have moved on to the point when he saw that car, he felt compelled to go threaten the driver. At the same time, the driver could have been someone looking to create conflict. Or, they both just screwed up at the same time.

 

For those stating the Protestors are peaceful, they are only watching mainstream left wing news and not seeing what is truly happening out there on the streets. That means they are sheep for following directives from mass media and not doing independent research.

For instance, just today this happened on a cursory search:

BLM protesters detained pregnant woman, and nurses in SLO
https://calcoastnews.com/2020/07/blm-protesters-detained-pregnant-woman-and-nurses-in-slo/

San Luis Obispo protesters smash glass on 4-year-old child
https://calcoastnews.com/2020/07/san-luis-obispo-protesters-smash-glass-on-4-year-old-child/

These peaceful psychopaths are attacking innocent people including children. Quite a few of them are criminals, not all peaceful protestors.

This is why I cannot believe anything a left wing poster blindly says because it is like I am hearing CNN spew out of their mouths.

 

So? Guns are magical devices that only save lives. Why would the guy in the car feel threatened by such a beloved item that is safer than driving? Go on, tell me why.

 

Right, I didn't know him. Seemed like a "bleeding heart liberal" nice kid though, except for his screwed up indoctrination of hate for police. We older generations neglected a huge swath of the younger people, didn't pay attention to what they were and were not being taught in school, and now we've got a bunch of young radicals running around convinced they're doing something positive in the name of justice.

The financial backers and brains behind the BLM organization will absolutely destroy this country, given a chance. I feel sorry for most of the gullible young people buying into the rhetoric.

 

Because the driver was surrounded by a crowd of violent thugs.

The guy rightly defended his life.

 

Following such logic, these so-called "protests" are not justified, as the actions of one law enforcement officer are of no relevance to law enforcement officers in different states.

 

That interview with Foster is going to demonstrate two very important things to any judge and/or jury that may be tasked with addressing this matter-

1) Foster clearly had a belligerent and antagonistic attitude, which is never a good thing to pair up with a firearm. The guy was basically a powder keg looking for a spark.

2) Foster clearly knew that he was engaged in an act of illegal civil disobedience at the time of the shooting. In the interview, he states "They won't let us march in the streets anymore", and there he is just a few hours later marching in the streets.Marching in the streets with the bratty child attitude that it's somehow his RIGHT to march in the streets, and block traffic.

Another thing in the shooter's favor will be that he shot Foster, and only Foster. He managed to hit the one guy with an obviously-visible weapon, and he managed to hit him multiple times, and with no collateral damage in the process. That's some pretty fancy shootin', Tex.

 

Aside from the fact that Americans have the right to protest anything, justified or not...

Technically, yes. The George Floyd protest(s) should have been limited to Minneapolis and up to their city to change the ordinance where they allowed police to use of choke holds on the neck until the person is unconscious. The video however, made people wonder, "Does my city allow that?" Many cities had already banned choke holds, so yeah, what are residents protesting??? (But again, a global political organization does have a right to instigate global protests wherever protests are allowed.)

Anyway, on this case. One armed protester; one armed driver. Driver turns into marchers. Armed protester approaches car. Driver shoots protester. That's completely unrelated to people in Portland and Seattle levels of violence, which aren't happening here locally.

The real parallel would be "Does a person have a right to turn onto a street during a march?" (Yes.) And do the protester and the driver have a right to open- and/or concealed carry? (Yes.) I don't really see anything about this incident "going global", unless they want to overlap Gun Confiscation marches on top of Black Lives Matter...though both people involved clearly appreciated the right to carry.

 

And magically, it saved his life from a guy carrying an AK-47. And, in this instance, driving was what got him into trouble.

 

How do we know that this was the EXACT time?

 

By putting the video and the audio from that video together. That isn't a photograph, but a freeze frame from a video.

 

The BLM movement is stereotyping police, it is violent to all lives matter. "Silence is violence," which was the philosophy of Foster is one of terrorism and tyranny, it is everywhere: https://www.bing.com/images/search?...&form=HDRSC2&first=1&scenario=ImageBasicHover

"Silence is violence," goes to the mentality of the terrorist; you could be sitting in car, doing nothing at all and being totally non-violent, but you are violent from their perspective.

You are not wearing the red armband with a white circle that has BLM in it, you are violent.

"Silence is violence" goes way beyond freedom of speech, it is a domestic enemy of the Constitution, it is not "whoever is not against us is for us," it is not treating someone like you want to be treated, it is forced belief, submit and speak the party line or you are violent.

"Silence is violence" elevates the innocent car driver, the passerby, any person not agreeing with the terrorist group is now violent.

You could be eating a sandwich in the park minding your own business enjoying a sunset, but you are VIOLENT.

The terrorist tyrant approached the car with his philosophy, which is seen in patterns of behavior of others all across the entire country, who also believe the philosophy, he perceived the car driver as violent before the car driver said a word.

 

In the video of the shooting, only Foster was near the car. Hence, this guy is spouting whatever some extremist left wing blogger told him.

 

I understand your point of view, and agree that the aim of the masterminds behind BLM is anarchy, achieved (eventually) by means of silencing any dissidents to their cause. However, the current focus is to get more people voluntarily and sympathetically on their side of thinking "all police are bad", or more explicitly their "ACAB" graffiti everywhere. It's obviously backfiring, by the way, as support for more police has risen since violence and riots started in some liberal cities.

The current "enemy" focus is not on the general public, where they have some mythical terroristic ideation of killing dissident civilians. They are trying to gain public support against the police, so terrorizing civilians would be counter to that aim.

The ideal scenario for BLM would have been if Foster's agitating comments against police, and his bravado in open-carrying a rifle, would have gotten him shot or beaten, on camera, by police.

Being shot by a citizen (whose motives we still do not know) doesn't really play to the benefit of BLM, except to the limited and minor extent that they can "rumor" that the driver planned the event, until real facts surface through the police investigation.

I'm still just sittin' back watching and waiting for facts.

 

Where did you hear that? There's certainly no public video.