• 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!

More on Austin shooting

At a law school that taught me to understand that discussing the proper way to use a firearm for self defense is not evidence of premeditation of anything, other than understanding how to properly use a firearm for self defense.

What law school was that ?


Yes, which is why I said he was at fault, and could be charge for reckless driving. Heck, I'll even give you vehicular assault if it makes your feel better.

Then he jumps out of the car and shoots a protester three times ? (and the barrel of the gun was pointing DOWN)

Sorry, sounds like a pre-meditated attack to me
Especially in light of his recent social media posts


That doesn't negate the fact that his car was then surrounded by a large crowd of people for no reason other than to return the intimidation. The weren't doing that in self defense. If they were really worried for their safety, they would have gone away from him, not toward him. What they did INCREASED the danger to them.

A crowd he had just driven into

You drive into a crowd of protesters, what do you think will happen ?


Really, which ones?

I copied and pasted them (along with the source) in post #13


No, that's not what I said. Stop lying.

Lying?

You said:

...but for the shooting to be deemed justified by the fact that he was threatened by a man brandishing a rifle in the middle of an angry mob...

So the St Louis lawyer was brandishing a rifle...are you saying he would have had to be part of a mob to be a target ?
The lawyer's gun was pointed horizontally too...unlike Foster's which was pointed DOWN


That's a matter of opinion. We'll see.


I guess we will

I wouldn't rely on the police though. We'll see if the FBI get involved.
 
What law school was that ?




Then he jumps out of the car and shoots a protester three times ? (and the barrel of the gun was pointing DOWN)

Sorry, sounds like a pre-meditated attack to me
Especially in light of his recent social media posts




A crowd he had just driven into

You drive into a crowd of protesters, what do you think will happen ?




I copied and pasted them (along with the source) in post #13




Lying?

You said:



So the St Louis lawyer was brandishing a rifle...are you saying he would have had to be part of a mob to be a target ?
The lawyer's gun was pointed horizontally too...unlike Foster's which was pointed DOWN

I guess we will

I wouldn't rely on the police though. We'll see if the FBI get involved.

Hands up... Don't shoot...
 
What law school was that ?

Why does that matter? You know, instead of making it about me, you could at least try to address the actual substance of the discussion.

Then he jumps out of the car and shoots a protester three times ? (and the barrel of the gun was pointing DOWN)

Sorry, sounds like a pre-meditated attack to me
Especially in light of his recent social media posts

Evidence that he "jumped out of the car" can be found where, other than your "imagination"?
There's a photo of him holding the rifle at low-ready, i.e. at a downward angle of about 45 degrees, i.e., with the muzzle about 10 inches lower than it would be if it was pointed directly at the driver's head.
Which social media posts were those? You mean the ones about defending himself against violence?

A crowd he had just driven into

You drive into a crowd of protesters, what do you think will happen ?

If they were really concerned for their safety, which apparently they were not, I would expect them to get as far away from the vehicle as possible. But then again, I also expect protesters not to be marching down the middle of the street without permission.

I copied and pasted them (along with the source) in post #13

So the same ones about self defense. What point do you think that proves, exactly, other than the point that he was interested in self defense.


The St. Louis lawyer was standing on his own property, watching a group of trespassers walk by. He wasn't illegally marching down the middle of the street. But for some reason you seem to think I agree with what the St. Louis lawyer did, and I don't, just like I don't agree with the guy in Austin driving his car into a crowd. Unlike you, I don't think that two wrongs make a right.
 
Why does that matter?

Because I think you're lying


Evidence that he "jumped out of the car" can be found where, other than your "imagination"?

Eye witnesses


There's a photo of him holding the rifle at low-ready, i.e. at a downward angle of about 45 degrees, i.e., with the muzzle about 10 inches lower than it would be if it was pointed directly at the driver's head.

So in a SAFE position ?
Not pointing at anyone

If they were really concerned for their safety, which apparently they were not, I would expect them to get as far away from the vehicle as possible...

How were they to know the car contained a man bent on homicide

Besides, people are naturally drawn to accidents and collisions...now when the shooting started, I'd wager people scattered


So the same ones about self defense. What point do you think that proves, exactly, other than the point that he was interested in self defense.

It proves he was interested in killing
Read them again...I'll bet the prosecution makes use of them


The St. Louis lawyer was standing on his own property, watching a group of trespassers walk by. He wasn't illegally marching down the middle of the street. But for some reason you seem to think I agree with what the St. Louis lawyer did, and I don't, just like I don't agree with the guy in Austin driving his car into a crowd. Unlike you, I don't think that two wrongs make a right.

So you can kill someone brandishing a gun if they're in the street, but not on their own property ?

How do you know he was "illegally marching down the middle of the street"
Witnesses say he was CROSSING the street, pushing his girlfriend in her wheelchair.


"Foster, 28, was killed in downtown Austin Saturday night during a protest against police brutality. Foster, who was white, was crossing an intersection and visibly carrying an AK-47 rifle — which is legal in Texas — when Perry drove toward the crowd."

Daniel Perry confirmed to have shot Austin protester Garrett Foster | The Texas Tribune
 
Coming from someone who repeatedly and verifiably lies on this website, I'll take that as a ringing endorsement.

You're still lying


That doesn't negate the fact that his car was then surrounded by a large crowd of people for no reason other than to return the intimidation. The weren't doing that in self defense. If they were really worried for their safety, they would have gone away from him, not toward him. What they did INCREASED the danger to them.


See, another lie:

"The majority of the demonstrators scattered..."



And he has already given a specific reason to be there.

Another lie

Forgot that one did you ?

He claimed to be looking for a "hot-spot"

CBS Austin reached out to Uber and Lyft, to see if Perry drove for them. Both companies have policies banning handguns for both their drivers and passengers.
Uber never responded, but Lyft provided the following statement:
'Based on the name given, we have no records indicating that this individual ever drove with Lyft.'



Man who shot Garrett Foster at downtown Austin protest claims self-defense, attorney says | WOAI



...not marching down the middle of the street at all, might have all have saved him too...

And another lie

"Foster had been crossing 4th Street on Congress Avenue with his wheel-chair bound fiancee Whitney Mitchell, 28, and hundreds of other demonstrators when a motorist sped towards the crowd and began blaring its horn."



Wheelchair-bound fiancee of slain BLM protester leads vigil in Austin | Daily Mail Online



See, another lie.


"Witnesses, however, say that Foster never raised the barrel of his gun toward the driver and was not intimidating him. They say the car swerved towards them and Foster has jumped in front of Mitchell, a quadruple amputee, fearing she was a target."

Austin Police Association President says shot BLM protester was looking for trouble 'and found it' | Daily Mail Online

Now retract.
 
Last edited:
Makes you wonder if he drove down to the demonstration hoping for a chance to kill someone.

Given the guy was an Uber driver (supposedly just dropped someone off) I find it pretty hard to believe he wasn't aware the protesters were in the area. GPS and even other drivers probably had given alerts because as a driver you want to know of closed streets to avoid wasting gas and time.

Personally I think his intention was to create a confrontational threat in hoping the protesters would react. Then he could injure a few while trying to "escape" the mob and cry victim. He didn't count on an armed protestor though so he panicked and ended up using more than his car as a deadly weapon.
 
So two guys go down to see the BLM demonstration in Austin. In their car, they rush at the demonstrators, tires squealing. They miss everyone, but they hid a barrier which stopped them.

One of the demonstrators a man by the name of Foster, approaches the car. He's carrying an AR47. He has it aimed away from the car.

The two guys in the car open fire on Foster, killing him.

The two guys call 911. The cops let them go.

Really great write up here: What We Know About the Austin BLM Protest Shooting




I think the only thing that would've saved Foster that night is if he wasn't armed.

Where did you get two guys in the car from?
 
Where did you get two guys in the car from?

There are sketch reports, I read one where that sergeant exited the car before shooting


He said, he'd just dropped off a fare and was looking for a "hot spot" to get another or food order
But if that was the case, why drive into a crowd of demonstrators. He is lying, he was looking for confrontation.
 
There are sketch reports, I read one where that sergeant exited the car before shooting


He said, he'd just dropped off a fare and was looking for a "hot spot" to get another or food order
But if that was the case, why drive into a crowd of demonstrators. He is lying, he was looking for confrontation.

Your comment was the first I've seen about him exiting the car, but nowhere has it been said there were two people in the vehicle.

It's beyond comprehension that Perry couldn't see the people all over that intersection before he wheeled around that corner into them. His headlights shine on several before he's actually into his turn and he could (should) have hit the brakes at that instant. Instead he completed the turn. His brake lights prove he wasn't cautious in turning, nor did he stop at the red light. Had he done that? The people would have crossed in front of him and ignored him like all the other cars. Now he wants to play the victim card.
 
Your comment was the first I've seen about him exiting the car, but nowhere has it been said there were two people in the vehicle.

It's beyond comprehension that Perry couldn't see the people all over that intersection before he wheeled around that corner into them. His headlights shine on several before he's actually into his turn and he could (should) have hit the brakes at that instant. Instead he completed the turn. His brake lights prove he wasn't cautious in turning, nor did he stop at the red light. Had he done that? The people would have crossed in front of him and ignored him like all the other cars. Now he wants to play the victim card.

No, he appears to have remained inside the car at all times, the article I read stating a witness saw his exiting the car appears to have been deleted as I can lo longer find it

He claims to have had a passenger/fare shortly before the incident but I can't see that has been verified (maybe it has)

And one of the on-line taxi services have denied that he ever worked for them (and both they and Uber both prohibit guns in vehicles Btw, casting more doubt he was working as an on-line cab driver)

Lastly he has tried to explain his presence at the incident by trying to find a "hot spot" for another job, yet the way & direction he was driving, does not support that

I think his actions and his social media history suggests that he was just an angry right winger, Trump supporter, looking for a confrontation to do his "bit" opposing the left


IMO, he is guilty of murder.
 
No, he appears to have remained inside the car at all times, the article I read stating a witness saw his exiting the car appears to have been deleted as I can lo longer find it

He claims to have had a passenger/fare shortly before the incident but I can't see that has been verified (maybe it has)

And one of the on-line taxi services have denied that he ever worked for them (and both they and Uber both prohibit guns in vehicles Btw, casting more doubt he was working as an on-line cab driver)

Lastly he has tried to explain his presence at the incident by trying to find a "hot spot" for another job, yet the way & direction he was driving, does not support that

I think his actions and his social media history suggests that he was just an angry right winger, Trump supporter, looking for a confrontation to do his "bit" opposing the left


IMO, he is guilty of murder.

I think it was determined he was with Uber but regardless of the company they should be able to verify if he dropped someone off nearby. The thing about having weapons really can't prove much other than he would have failed to follow the rules of conduct put out by the company. Much like he couldn't bother with basic traffic laws.

And if he was really looking into a hotspot then that ups the odds he knew 100% that Congress was blocked with protestors and a route that would waste his time. Police were actively working the scene and would have been giving updates where traffic was being affected.
 
Early reports had two guys in the car, but early reports are sketchy at best.
 
I think it was determined he was with Uber but regardless of the company they should be able to verify if he dropped someone off nearby. The thing about having weapons really can't prove much other than he would have failed to follow the rules of conduct put out by the company. Much like he couldn't bother with basic traffic laws.

And if he was really looking into a hotspot then that ups the odds he knew 100% that Congress was blocked with protestors and a route that would waste his time. Police were actively working the scene and would have been giving updates where traffic was being affected.

The reports I read last night was that Uber wouldn't comment, but yes if he had picked up a fare, the collection and drop off points should be a matter of record
(the police should be able to get the drop off time from the fare too)


Failing to follow Uber rules, establishes him as dishonest and reckless of authority
His driving also does that

His alibi for being there doesn't gel either - contradicted by his driving and looking for a hotspot in the middle of a protest
(I'm sure the police can check if he was "available" at this time)

His story just doesn't check out

He was looking for a confrontation and murdered someone.
 
Early reports had two guys in the car, but early reports are sketchy at best.

So what was your point in posting the article then?

It doesn't mention any of what you claimed. No two guys in car, no two guys came to see the BLM protest. No two guy opened fire on Foster.
 
More has come out about the shooter in the Austin case

U.S. Army sergeant who shot Austin protester Garrett Foster posted tweets about retaliating against demonstrators

The man suspected of killing anti-police brutality protester Garrett Foster in Austin on Saturday has been identified as an active U.S. Army sergeant named Daniel Perry.

Perry’s lawyer also confirmed to The Texas Tribune late Friday that his client wrote tweets that have strengthened activists’ concerns about the shooter’s frame of mind, the validity of his self-defense claim and Austin police officials’ handling of the investigation.
(. . .)
In June, when President Donald Trump tweeted that “protesters, anarchists, agitators, looters or lowlifes” protesting in Oklahoma would face “a much different scene” than protesters in New York or Minneapolis, Perry responded from a now-deleted account with the username “@knivesfromtrigu.” The tweet read, “Send them to Texas we will show them why we say don’t mess with Texas.” That account was identified as being connected to Perry by Tribune of the People, which bills itself as a “revolutionary news service.”
(. . .)
Texas’ so-called “stand-your-ground” law allows people to use deadly force against someone else if they feel they are in danger. It also prohibits an individual from arguing self-defense if they provoked a threat from someone else.

“The simple fact is that Sgt. Perry reasonably perceived a threat to his life when, as has now been confirmed by independent witnesses, Mr. Foster raised his assault rifle toward Sgt. Perry who was sitting in his car,” Broden said in his release.

But Perry’s tweets added to the concerns of those who already were skeptical that he was acting in self-defense.

Capochiano and other witnesses have said Perry seemed to drive threateningly into the crowd before shots were fired, and his actions seemed intentional.
 
Early reports had two guys in the car, but early reports are sketchy at best.

Some people on this forum will believe anything they read, unless it's true that is.
 
More has come out about the shooter in the Austin case

Foster went out looking for trouble and he found it. It happens that way a lot. Foster took his rifle to demonstration, and someone else brought their gun too. Reason why you don't tote a rifle to a demonstration. Eventually bad luck will be all over you like white on rice.
 
Foster went out looking for trouble and he found it. It happens that way a lot. Foster took his rifle to demonstration, and someone else brought their gun too. Reason why you don't tote a rifle to a demonstration. Eventually bad luck will be all over you like white on rice.

He was pushing his wife's wheelchair

If anyone went looking for trouble it was Perry.
 
Back
Top Bottom