U.S. Army sergeant convicted of murder in protester's shooting death in Texas

Judging by how quickly the gun was fired after stopping I would say that the murderer was already brandishing before the victim arrived

 

No, it does not. It was premeditated, and then he tried to hide behind self defense laws.

 

So, again, you're telling us that because the guy with the AK was black, and angry that his pointing and threatening others with his AK wasn't a crime? You call this an "opinion", but in fact is derivative of the law. So, when dude in the Uber felt threatened, he had the right, in TX to stand his ground and not die. You still haven't addressed this, why not? Do you expect that when draw on, that you don't have the right to defend yourself? Does it matter to you that the shooter was a caucasian male veteran? And this is the behavior that you won't tolerate in your community? Is it really that simple? You're just mad because of your perceived racism here? I suspect that if the races of the perp and the shooter were changed, you'd have a completely different tune here.

Face it. The guy with the AK was putting lives in danger. He drew his weapon against an armed driver and lost. That isn't a violation of the law in TX, even when it happens in the people's republic of Austin.

 

He was not black, so your race card falls flat.

Garrett Foster

Clearly the justice system disagrees with you opinion.

 

I made an assumption based on the photo..



From the night in question. This is the guy who threaten the uber driver with an AK on the streets of Austin. The person included as the second photo on the right is the wrongly convicted shooter.

If, as you say, the dead guy with the AK wasn't ethnically black, why do you suppose that the Austin DA prosecuted this case? Are you making the case that the case was prosecuted because someone dared to fight back against the mob? Oh wait, never mind... This is what you believe in. Mobs creating chaos, assaulting innocent people in punishment for their unwillingness to lay down to your tyranny.

 

1) From multiple photographs taken in sequence from a 2) video that 3) is available from more than one angle.

Dude waylaid a driver like a highwayman and got shot for it.

 

Its not a supposition. He's demonstrably a white dude. His girlfriend is black. That photograph is a white man with a rag on his face and a cap on his head, demonstrably.
Put your reading glasses on next time.

The da in travis county prosecuted the guy because its travis county the most liberal county in the state and that played well with voters.

 

He's literally pulling it into battery in that photo ffs. How many firearms have you handled redcoat?

 

They were offended that he did not give way to them. They then literally mob his car and start banging on hit with heavy objects, and the dead man leaves his wheelchair bound girlfriend, runs up to the car and begins to bring his weapon into battery before he gets shot.
The proper response to a driver breaching etiquette wherein no one was harmed, as here he did not in fact harm anyone with his vehicle, is the finger. Not mobbing the car.

 

Right? Its almost like the fellow members of his terrorist group lied on behalf of the dead man.

 

Yes, but giving false testimony/perjury is apparently legal if you are engaged in the right kind of mob violence in a DP ruled city.

 

Again: Yes he was an *******. Being an ******* is not carte blanche for a mob to assault you. Making a wide turn while distracted and almost causing a collision is the act of an *******.
It is not cause to surround the vehicle, and start beating on the windows and doors with heavy objects. It is not cause to bring a rifle into battery.
You'll note he was not charged with vehicular assault. No one with mangled limbs was presented. No personal injury cases running concurrent with his prosecution. Why is that? Because he didn't hit anyone with his car, he honked for them to clear the ****ing road and they took umbridge to that. THAT is the escalation, the mob surrounding his car rather than simply getting out of the way and cursing him as you see another person do in the tandem dash videos from across the street.

Again: That was talking to a different poster. That poster wants that level of psych evaluation every time you buy a gun. Again: Different poster, feel free to ignore it.

The judge can also act in error, its literally why the appeals and pardons processes exist ffs.
The defense wanted to offer Foster's interview just prior to the shooting where he said he was carrying an ak because 'they won't let us march' but when asked what he'd use it for he stated 'well if I use it on the cops I'm dead, but I think [some paraphrasing 'anyone else who is out to get us'] is too much of a ***** to do anything.' and evidence of a like nature showing that Mr. Foster was looking for a confrontation and was not some lamb of a person as the various witnesses represented him as.

Scotus does not in any way shape or form resemble the Texas board of pardons and parole. That you'd compare them tells me you don't understand how things work.

 

It was claimed it was pointing at him. While there is no question that the weapon is tugged against the chest and still pointing downwards. And you lose when this is the best snapshot there is.

 

Was Foster's final interview shared in court? I'm guessing the judge probably disallowed it, right?

 

You realize he's standing next to his car window, with the butt into his shoulder IE not laying to the side IE pointing front and a bit down IE more or less at the driver in the car who is sitting.
He's bringing it into battery. See the position of his elbow? That's how you position your elbow when you're bringing the gun into battery from low ready.


I say again: How many firearms have you handled in your lifetime outlander?

 

I know I was shocked as a lawyer the first time a judge was entirely non-plussed by a witness perjuring themselves on the stand.

 

Maybe (unlike you) they don't decide to prosecute people based on racial issues.. The DA prosecuted the shooter because it was an unlawful killing. In SYG States you can kill people and try to hide behind self defense claim, but it doesn't always work. People go to prison because there were eye witnesses, or video evidence to prove the killer is lying. We have had failed attempts in Florida too.

If he had been found not guilty, they we'd have a big problem, because any gun owner could shoot another gun owner and later say "his arm moved", so I defended myself, which would prove any anti-SYG argument to be 100% true. These scenarios will play out a lot in open carry States, but not so much in places like Florida where people need to carry concealed.

 

Or maybe, because the shooter was participating in the BLM riot, the DA made the case to show his support for BLM. I suppose that hadn't occurred to you. In this case, there is video that shows dude with AK threatening the uber driver. The eye witnesses support the self defense claim. Stop with the nonsense.

 

Out of all those multiple photographs the best photo you got was one which shows the gun pointing at the ground

 

Its not pointing at the ground. He's got the butt into his shoulder, its not laying side on. Its pointing at an angle, and guess who is sitting in that angle? That's right, the driver of the vehicle.

 

Either the murderer was in a car like this


Or the victim was about 12 foot tall

 

He he was in a regular sized sedan and the shooter was a person of average height. That barrel ain't down at his knees ffs.

 

So he regularly participated in activities that by their nature, were provocative, while open carrying. And there is a still frame that shows him in an aggressive stance over a man, in the sitting position who is surrounded by people yelling at him. Sounds like he was regularly doing what Rittenhouse wasn't, even though 1000's of media pundits accused Rittenhouse of being provocative. No way people can't see this double standard. They do, and don't care. Anyone who doesn't agree with the narrative must be purged, regardless of the actual circumstances or facts...

 

Yup and so? He's still not pointing the gun at the guy at all. The guy initial claimed that this happened, but as far as I read up, he did not dare to claim that in court under oath. While others did take the stand and claimed the guy was not pointing the gun at him. That ends the discussion that it did not happen. The guy also who knew the protest was there, and notified people about that he would possible go shoot somebody. And he ended up illegally killing somebody in that state of mind. Hence the easy verdict. Get over it.

 

If counsel was ineffective, then Perry should fire them, and ask that he had ineffective counsel. However, that is also one of the least likely scenarios in which he could get a could trial. But it does not appear Perry is doing that since the same legal team is filing an appeal as we speak.
\