• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:122] What We Know About the Austin BLM Protest Shooting

dobieg said:
Perhaps next time these punks who think they can terrorize people with impunity will think before they start harassing innocent civilians.


And make no mistake, surrounding vehicles, harassing passengers and having weapons while you do it is not simply peacefully protesting.
Click to expand...

Republicans love attacking second amendment right when it's people that disagree with them politically responsibly carrying. Here's a conservative defending what appears to be a straight up murder because it was a "liberal" being killed.
 
Ikari said:
There are a few things off hand I believe that work against the shooter. First off, he drove into the protest. There has been a few cases already of people driving into protests and purposefully hitting protesters. So people are on edge about that. The shooter drove into the protest area and started honking.
Click to expand...

Unless it is proven that by "driving in" means he was trying to use his car as a lethal weapon, then he didn't break any laws. The fact he was honking his horn indicates he was honking to tell the idiots to get out of the road. The protestors don't own the road--- although they believe they do. Not saying it a good idea to put your car intentionally near pedestrians---even pedestrians doing stupid stuff. But sometimes drivers are caught unaware by these events with hundreds of people suddenly blocking streets and preventing traffic from moving. And the fact remains is that Texas is a stand your ground state so the driver has a legal right to be anywhere where it is legal for him to be as long as he isn't committing any crimes, or planning to. So unless he was driving up on a sidewalk, what exactly was his crime????

And in terms of your argument about drivers driving over protestors, the same counter argument can be said of protestors/rioters pulling drivers out of cars and beating them too.


Ikari said:
There's no indication that Foster even so much as raised his rifle, and in fact there is testimony to the opposite. Now, we'll have to see what additional information and facts can be discovered, but at this point it would seem that this guy drove into the protest area specifically to start trouble.

Time will tell though.
Click to expand...

Here is what will likely be shown to have happened:

Protestors are blocking the street where drivers are just trying to go about their business
Driver starts honking his horn and is attempting to get by them
Protestors don't like that and begin surrounding the driver's car and then start pounding on the vehicle
This prompts MORE protestors to approach the driver's car--- some have guns
Driver now is in fear of being attacked or killed and responds by firing at the large masked man with a long rifle he feels threatened by
One of the armed protestors returns fire as driver tries to get away from the angry mob
Driver calls 911 to report the incident
Protestors whine and cry about why they can't just continue to do as the please without consequences to their stupidity and threatening behavior

Watch this video. At the end of it is a clip of the guy who was killed. Note how HE says the police are not tolerating them being allowed to continue taking over streets and highway service roads. He clearly feels he is entitled to do this and clearly he brought his rifle along to intimidate people into submitting to his entitled thinking. Why else would he bring his long gun to a so called "peaceful protest" other than to intimidate? But on the day he died what he didn't bargain for was another Texan, who also has a right to carry a gun, and also has a right to operate his car on the streets he pays taxes for and was there to respond to the intimidation and defend his life when he felt he had to.

 
Last edited:
Khayembii Communique said:
Republicans love attacking second amendment right when it's people that disagree with them politically responsibly carrying. Here's a conservative defending what appears to be a straight up murder because it was a "liberal" being killed.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, there are no principles involved.
 
Based on what I've seen so far, there's probable cause for manslaughter, at the very least. Additional charges can be added later.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Your photo seems to support what witnesses, not the shooter, are saying:

"Witnesses have told reporters that Foster kept his rifle pointed at the ground as he approached the vehicle, and that he was not the only protester carrying a firearm during the march. They say that the driver pointed a handgun through the car window and fired at Foster. Witness Michael Capochiano told the New York Times that Foster “was not aiming the gun or doing anything aggressive with the gun”:"
Click to expand...

Just having his weapon at the ready, as Foster clearly did in that photo, could be considered an imminent threat to the driver of the vehicle and we don't have any photo at the instant the driver fired his shots. It's possible that Foster raised his weapon.

In any case, that's for the police and the DA to decide.
 
dobieg said:
Do you read only the parts you want to see?




Garrett Foster Brought His Gun to Austin Protests. Then He Was Shot Dead.
Click to expand...

What's that quote got to do with Foster pushing a wheelchair? And What's with the stupid reference to only reading what I want to see and then quoting from an entirely different report? That's not only stupid, it's bloody dishonest.
Did you get this far in the report you cited? "The car came to a stop after turning from Fourth Street onto Congress Avenue and appeared to strike a traffic pylon. As people shouted angrily at the driver, Garrett Foster walked toward the car, with the muzzle of his rifle pointed downward, he said."

“He was not aiming the gun or doing anything aggressive with the gun,” Capochiano said. “I’m not sure if there was much of an exchange of words. It wasn’t like there was any sort of verbal altercations. He wasn’t charging at the car.”
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Republicans love attacking second amendment right when it's people that disagree with them politically responsibly carrying. Here's a conservative defending what appears to be a straight up murder because it was a "liberal" being killed.
Click to expand...

Uh huh.


Liberals have no problem harassing and terrorizing innocent people during their so called 'peaceful protests'. And now they've upped the ante by doing the same with weapons.



So the next time a group of rightwingers surrounds a car full of innocent liberals and starts terrorizing them and pointing weapons at them, you can show me where anyone defends them if they get shot for being knotheads.
 
Mycroft said:
Just having his weapon at the ready, as Foster clearly did in that photo, could be considered an imminent threat to the driver of the vehicle
Click to expand...

No, it couldn't. He doesn't even have it shouldered in that photo. It's pointing at the ground, which witnesses corroborated. We can't tell but I'd be willing to bet given his background and training that his finger isn't on the trigger either. There is zero way to argue that someone legally carrying a firearm with it pointed at the ground, not shouldered, with no finger on the trigger, is an imminent threat.

You posted that because you wanted to try to claim that what the shooter was claiming was true. You embarrassed yourself by corroborating what the witnesses claim to have seen.

and we don't have any photo at the instant the driver fired his shots. It's possible that Foster raised his weapon.

In any case, that's for the police and the DA to decide.
Click to expand...

Then maybe you shouldn't have posted the photo.
 
Ikari said:
There are a few things off hand I believe that work against the shooter. First off, he drove into the protest. There has been a few cases already of people driving into protests and purposefully hitting protesters. So people are on edge about that. The shooter drove into the protest area and started honking. There's no indication that Foster even so much as raised his rifle, and in fact there is testimony to the opposite. Now, we'll have to see what additional information and facts can be discovered, but at this point it would seem that this guy drove into the protest area specifically to start trouble.

Time will tell though.
Click to expand...

Ive seen quite a few do just that and drive into protests to get out and chase people with machetes.
 
Mycroft said:
Just having his weapon at the ready, as Foster clearly did in that photo, could be considered an imminent threat to the driver of the vehicle and we don't have any photo at the instant the driver fired his shots. It's possible that Foster raised his weapon.

In any case, that's for the police and the DA to decide.
Click to expand...

So if we see anyone with a rifle, even if it is pointed at the ground, we can "defend ourselves"?

Okay.
 
dobieg said:
Uh huh.

Liberals have no problem harassing and terrorizing innocent people during their so called 'peaceful protests'. And now they've upped the ante by doing the same with weapons.

So the next time a group of rightwingers surrounds a car full of innocent liberals and starts terrorizing them and pointing weapons at them, you can show me where anyone defends them if they get shot for being knotheads.
Click to expand...

Hey look a conservative lying, wish I got a nickel for every time that happened because I'd be able to retire.
 
exoplanet said:
Honest questions here, if everyone is supposed to be able to walk around carrying firearms, does that mean at the slightest sign of trouble anyone can use "self defense" as a reason? If someone is open carrying and they are visibly angry with you, who's to say whether or not your life is in danger? Just seems like a recipe for wanton violence.
Click to expand...

It is foolish for legislatures to pass laws allowing people to walk around armed.
 
Liberals want to be able to harass and intimidate innocent civilians with impunity and if anyone has the audacity to defend themselves against these little monsters, they want to lock them up and throw away the keys.


It's just absurd the way some leftists think and reason.
 
dobieg said:
Liberals want to be able to harass and intimidate innocent civilians with impunity and if anyone has the audacity to defend themselves against these little monsters, they want to lock them up and throw away the keys.

It's just absurd the way some leftists think and reason.
Click to expand...

Unhinged and irrelevant rants.
 
dobieg said:
Uh huh.


Liberals have no problem harassing and terrorizing innocent people during their so called 'peaceful protests'. And now they've upped the ante by doing the same with weapons.



So the next time a group of rightwingers surrounds a car full of innocent liberals and starts terrorizing them and pointing weapons at them, you can show me where anyone defends them if they get shot for being knotheads.
Click to expand...

I have no issues with people carrying weapons as long as it is legal (see the MI) protests for example.
So I have no issues here with people carrying weapons as texas law allows it.

It very much could be that this guy in the car is going to jail. he was the aggressor.
 
ludin said:
I have no issues with people carrying weapons as long as it is legal (see the MI) protests for example.
So I have no issues here with people carrying weapons as texas law allows it.

It very much could be that this guy in the car is going to jail. he was the aggressor.
Click to expand...

Glad to see at least one of you is levelheaded about this.
 
Am I the only one thinking that the guy who got shot put himself in the way? Not saying he deserved it, not saying the guy in the car was right......but with as much stupidity going on in these protests, because of these protests, why in the world would you EVER put yourself in that type of situation? Makes no sense to me.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
No, it couldn't. He doesn't even have it shouldered in that photo. It's pointing at the ground, which witnesses corroborated. We can't tell but I'd be willing to bet given his background and training that his finger isn't on the trigger either. There is zero way to argue that someone legally carrying a firearm with it pointed at the ground, not shouldered, with no finger on the trigger, is an imminent threat.

You posted that because you wanted to try to claim that what the shooter was claiming was true. You embarrassed yourself by corroborating what the witnesses claim to have seen.



Then maybe you shouldn't have posted the photo.
Click to expand...

I'm not claiming anything is true. I merely raised a possibility. What part of "that's for the police and the DA to decide" do you not understand?

I posted that photo for two reasons:

1. It's the only one I've seen.

2. A lot of people in this thread are saying a lot of things. That photo helps clarify things.

None of that is a judgment on my part. All I have is speculation based on limited information.

You really should try to avoid assigning motivations to me that do not apply to me. In fact, YOU should be embarrassed for doing this.
 
Luce said:
So if we see anyone with a rifle, even if it is pointed at the ground, we can "defend ourselves"?

Okay.
Click to expand...

I haven't said that. I simply said it "could be considered".
 
Mycroft said:
I'm not claiming anything is true. I merely raised a possibility. What part of "that's for the police and the DA to decide" do you not understand?

I posted that photo for two reasons:

1. It's the only one I've seen.

2. A lot of people in this thread are saying a lot of things. That photo helps clarify things.

None of that is a judgment on my part. All I have is speculation based on limited information.

You really should try to avoid assigning motivations to me that do not apply to me. In fact, YOU should be embarrassed for doing this.
Click to expand...

Sad that you can't even stand by your own position.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Sad that you can't even stand by your own position.
Click to expand...

LMAO he didn't make a position for **** sake, you tried to corner him into one....he didn't claim anything, you took his words, and made a claim for him...and then you want to try and call him out for not standing by claim that he didn't make to ****ing begin with?

What a ****ing joke.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom