More on Austin shooting

[Court Jester]

He was pushing his wife's wheelchair

Well, he didn't feel like he need to keep pushing her wheelchair when he left her alone to run over with the other BLM mob to attack the other guy's car. So I guess he figured she was okay without him.

If anyone went looking for trouble it was Perry.

Foster was looking for trouble and he found it.

 

[apdst]

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.

You shouldn't use this source, ever again...lol

Daniel Perry, an active duty soldier at Fort Hood, was a rideshare driver and had just dropped off a customer. Foster pointed his rifle at him. Perry shot Foster in self defense. Case closed.

 

[justabubba]

here is the source of the driver getting out of his car allegation:

The victim’s mother, Sheila Foster, told Good Morning America on Sunday morning that she had heard that Foster had been pushing his fiancée, Whitney Mitchell, who is Black and a quadruple amputee, in her wheelchair through the intersection when “this gentleman got out of his car and started firing shots, and my son was shot three times.”

[emphasis added by bubba]
What We Know About the Austin BLM Protest Shooting
cite was in the OP

 

[TurtleDude]

I would say that if you are armed out on the street you probably don't have any brains.

in some areas, if you are unarmed, you will be a Darwin Award winner.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Well, he didn't feel like he need to keep pushing her wheelchair when he left her alone to run over with the other BLM mob to attack the other guy's car. So I guess he figured she was okay without him.

Anything is possible. The guy was obviously a wizard because, according to Rich, he wasn't illegally walking down Congress Street where the car was, he was "CROSSING the street," which must mean 4th street because who marches perpendicular to other protesters?

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.

So either he left his fiance in the middle of the intersection to go run back and protect everyone from the car, or he wheeled her back there and THEN let go of the wheelchair so he could raise his rifle to low-ready in Perry's direction, all in about 5 seconds.

 

[Rich2018]

Well, he didn't feel like he need to keep pushing her wheelchair when he left her alone to run over with the other BLM mob to attack the other guy's car. So I guess he figured she was okay without him.

What makes you say Perry's car was attacked - I've not read any reports of damage done to it by the protesters

Foster was looking for trouble and he found it

If anyone was looking for trouble, it was the self-claimed Uber driver, armed in contravention to Uber's rules, and driving his car at speed into a group of protesters

Does that not strike you as going out of your way ?

 

[Rich2018]

So either he left his fiance in the middle of the intersection to go run back and protect everyone from the car, or he wheeled her back there and THEN let go of the wheelchair so he could raise his rifle to low-ready in Perry's direction, all in about 5 seconds.

Did he leave her in a dangerous position ?

 

[Court Jester]

What makes you say Perry's car was attacked - I've not read any reports of damage done to it by the protesters

Witnesses stated to the police that they and other pounded on his car. Their claim was they did it to "protect people"----after admitting they reacted to him honking the horn. That is attacking someone's car. And when a mob does it in this context it may create fear of bodily harm as well. The protestors should understand that when they go out to violate laws.

If anyone was looking for trouble, it was the self-claimed Uber driver, armed in contravention to Uber's rules,

Well, apparently if BLM and Antifa agitators are going to be carrying long guns to so called "peaceful protests" then he was smart to arm himself for his own protection.

So he is Uber driver? I didn't know that. So then a working man out trying to earn a living was a good reason for him to be out that night don't you think? What were the Antifa/BLM out doing other than preventing other struggling businesses to carry on with business in Austin.... night, after night, after night, after night?

and driving his car at speed into a group of protesters

Wow! 15-18 mph must be fast for you? What do you drive, a Stanley Steamer?

 

[Rich2018]

Witnesses stated to the police that they and other pounded on his car. Their claim was they did it to "protect people"----after admitting they reacted to him honking the horn. That is attacking someone's car....

I guess you could call that attacking his car, but the intent is more important

Was it done to cause damage or done to remonstrate with the driver ?

I've not read anything to suggest Perry could reasonably feel his life was threatened...unlike the demonstrators, who before Perry stopped, could have

Well, apparently if BLM and Antifa agitators are going to be carrying long guns to so called "peaceful protests" then he was smart to arm himself for his own protection.

Why ?

The RW had no problem with 20,000 mostly heavily armed demonstrators, in Richmond, Va, in January this year
I wonder what tune you'd sing had an Antifa supporter driven his car into a group of them and then randomly shot one dead ?

So he is Uber driver? I didn't know that.

I believe he has claimed to be

So then a working man out trying to earn a living was a good reason for him to be out that night don't you think?

No, driving your car into a group of protesters in not what I'd expect from an Uber driver

And he was armed, contrary to Uber rules

And he admits to not having a fare

What were the Antifa/BLM out doing other than preventing other struggling businesses to carry on with business in Austin.... night, after night, after night, after night?

Exercising their constitutional right to protest

Or don't you believe in the Constitution when Trump doesn't like it ?

15-18 mph must be fast for you? What do you drive, a Stanley Steamer?

Tell you what, stand in front of a car doing 18 mph and then tell me how it felt.

 

[Court Jester]

I guess you could call that attacking his car, but the intent is more important

Was it done to cause damage or done to remonstrate with the driver ?

I don't know what planet you came from but you DON'T touch another man's car.... especially not in anger.

I've not read anything to suggest Perry could reasonably feel his life was threatened...unlike the demonstrators, who before Perry stopped, could have

Texas is a stand your ground state, the driver does not need to be stopped by a mob of angry people. Clearly there are many instances where drivers are pulled from their cars and beaten. But the point is that an angry mob---- you may not know what they will do. These so called "peaceful demonstrations" turn into rioting, looting, assault, arson, murder..... so the responsibility is on the mob/demonstrators to NOT put people into fear. And nothing puts a person more into fear than another angry shouting person running up on you with a rifle. Something you conveniently left out.

The RW had no problem with 20,000 mostly heavily armed demonstrators, in Richmond, Va, in January this year

Did they do it for days on end? Did they threaten anyone? Did they pound on anyone's car?

I wonder what tune you'd sing had an Antifa supporter driven his car into a group of them and then randomly shot one dead ?

There was no "random shot one dead" in Austin. The guy with the long rifle put the driver in fear for his life. If someone in Richmond had done that to an Antifa person, then I say the Antifa person had a right to defend himself to after fearing for his life. The right to self defense is not a left or right argument, but you already know that.

And he was armed, contrary to Uber rules

So he loses his job with Uber, that is Uber's business not yours or mine. He lives in Texas and has a right to carry a gun. Good thing he had too.

And he admits to not having a fare

Uber drivers drive around waiting to get fares, did you not know that? They don't just sit at home waiting for that phone app to chime; the guy sounds like he was out working... unlike the bothersome BLM/Antfa mob.

Exercising their constitutional right to protest

And the driver's right to protect himself.

Or don't you believe in the Constitution when Trump doesn't like it ?

Protesting is fine, but protestors prohibiting other citizens to go about their business is not fine.

Tell you what, stand in front of a car doing 18 mph and then tell me how it felt.

Not likely to happen as I don't wander around the streets at night getting in the way of large heavy moving metal object on wheels. I actually paid attention during physics class.

 

[Rich2018]

I don't know what planet you came from but you DON'T touch another man's car.... especially not in anger.

I thought it was his hat

(Jeff Bridges in "Wild Bill")

Either way, if I was on a jury, touching a mans car isn't what the 2nd amendment was passed to prevent

Texas is a stand your ground state, the driver does not need to be stopped by a mob of angry people.

If someone drove at me, I'd be angry
Does that mean the protesters had the right to stand their ground and Foster was doing nothing but executing his rights under Texas law ?

Clearly there are many instances where drivers are pulled from their cars and beaten. But the point is that an angry mob---- you may not know what they will do. These so called "peaceful demonstrations" turn into rioting, looting, assault, arson, murder..... so the responsibility is on the mob/demonstrators to NOT put people into fear. And nothing puts a person more into fear than another angry shouting person running up on you with a rifle. Something you conveniently left out.

So in your mind, a gun owner can shoot a man with a gun just because he/she couldn't know what the man might do ?

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that "possibility" is grounds for a defense
If it is, you can shoot anyone you get into an argument with

Did they do it for days on end? Did they threaten anyone? Did they pound on anyone's car?

To use your excuse above: they've could've do
The fact that if you'd driven your car into a group of them and gotten into an argument, would you have grounds to shoot them because of what they "could've" done ?

The guy with the long rifle put the driver in fear for his life. If someone in Richmond had done that to an Antifa person, then I say the Antifa person had a right to defend himself to after fearing for his life. The right to self defense is not a left or right argument, but you already know that.

How do you know he feared for his life ?

So if you claim that you fear for your life, it's a get-out-of-jail-free card for shooting someone ?

So he loses his job with Uber, that is Uber's business not yours or mine. He lives in Texas and has a right to carry a gun. Good thing he had too.

You don't have a right to carry a gun when working for an employer who forbids it
Sure you might not be jailed but the company can rightfully terminate you

That he was violating company policy proves he was out looking for trouble

Uber drivers drive around waiting to get fares, did you not know that?

They drive to a safe place - not into a crowd of demonstrators

And the driver's right to protect himself

But not to murder
He was not attacked and there's no evidence the protesters aimed to harm him, let alone kill him

An apology and retreat would have defused the situation
(like the situation in Michigan with the crazy woman pointing a gun at an innocent family)

Protesting is fine, but protestors prohibiting other citizens to go about their business is not fine.

Like this:

1,500 Cars Disrupt Traffic at Kennedy To Protest the SST - The New York Times


Protests often affect people "going about their business, didn't you know that?

Not likely to happen as I don't wander around the streets at night getting in the way of large heavy moving metal object on wheels. I actually paid attention during physics class.

So you agree a 1.5 ton car traveling at 18mph is quite dangerous.

 

[Court Jester]

If someone drove at me, I'd be angry
Does that mean the protesters had the right to stand their ground and Foster was doing nothing but executing his rights under Texas law ?

The protestors are the ones blocking the street. Why the fook are they angry because a motorist honked his horn at them? They are the ones causing the disturbance.

Angry CHILDREN is what they are.

So in your mind, a gun owner can shoot a man with a gun just because he/she couldn't know what the man might do ?

An angry person comes at your car and points a rifle at you, you think you need to wait to see if he MIGHT NOT shoot you???????????????

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that "possibility" is grounds for a defense
If it is, you can shoot anyone you get into an argument with

NO! You can use force against a reasonable fear for your life. Angry guy pointing a rifle at you would reasonably be grounds for self defense.

How do you know he feared for his life ?

So if you claim that you fear for your life, it's a get-out-of-jail-free card for shooting someone ?

A jury will decide that.... if he ends up charged.

You don't have a right to carry a gun when working for an employer who forbids it
Sure you might not be jailed but the company can rightfully terminate you

He is an adult, he can make his own decision. If the gets caught and fired, I'm sure he wouldn't argue that he didn't violate Uber's rule. I just think he figured "my body my choice" and sought to protect it. Not like it is peaceful out there right now.

That he was violating company policy proves he was out looking for trouble

Logic fail.

 

[Glitch]

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.

What you failed to point out, as usual, is that these BLM rioters were already violating the law by blocking traffic. These are terrorists, not protestors. Protestors abide by the law and behave peacefully, which cannot be used to describe BLM. They deserve to be shot, repeatedly. Only anti-American leftists tolerate terrorist scum.

 

[Glitch]

They didn't have no cause to shoot him, if he was aiming at them.

Just because an armed man approaches someone, and is shot dead, that's justifiable homicide?

Of course they did. That is exactly the right time you shoot someone, when they are aiming a firearm at you. Let that be a lesson in firearm safety - Never point a firearm at another person, unless you intend to use it. It doesn't matter if the firearm is loaded or not, merely pointing the firearm at them makes it justifiable homicide.

 

[Glitch]

The right-wing made this argument endlessly during the armed protests against stay at home directives in places like Michigan. Of couse, we have known all along that the right to be publicly armed depends on your political views.

The difference being that the right-wing protesters in Michigan abides by the law, they didn't even block traffic, and nobody set the police on fire like BLM did in Portland. They were protesters in Michigan, and terrorists in Portland. Learn the difference.

 

[Glitch]

Looks like a justified shooting from what they are reporting here in Texas. Sad and easily avoided, don't bring long guns to a peaceful protest and definitely don't point at anyone if you do, especially in a State where many of us have carry permits.

Carry permits are a violation of the Second Amendment. No permit should ever be required, for any reason, to exercise any constitutionally protected right.

 

[Glitch]

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.

What you leftists fail to comprehend is that if they are violating the law then they can't be protesters. They are either rioters at best, or terrorists at worst, but in either case the one thing they are not are protesters no matter how many times you deliberately lie and claim otherwise.

 

[Glitch]

in some areas, if you are unarmed, you will be a Darwin Award winner.

Timothy Treadwell comes to mind. :lamo

 

[Jason Warfield]

Looks like a justified shooting from what they are reporting here in Texas. Sad and easily avoided, don't bring long guns to a peaceful protest and definitely don't point at anyone if you do, especially in a State where many of us have carry permits.

You also don't need to bring firearms to a state capitol and go into session and intimidate the law makers within either...

 

[zsu2357]

Looks like the police have enough for a murder charge to me.

post 8

Damn looks like you got the inside scoop again.

 

[zsu2357]

Witnesses say he wasn't pointing the gun at the shooters.

There's no video of it, I guess.

Let me guess. All the witnesses just happen to be BLM protesters.

 

[zsu2357]

Third statement is ridiculous.

Actually so is the 1st 2nd and 4th statements.

 

[zsu2357]

I kinda hope Rich replies to Ontologuy's post 23

 

[SkyFox76]

What you leftists fail to comprehend is that if they are violating the law then they can't be protesters. They are either rioters at best, or terrorists at worst, but in either case the one thing they are not are protesters no matter how many times you deliberately lie and claim otherwise.

First try dropping the leftist bs. Second, crossing in the middle of an intersection (jaywalking) is illegal. Guess what? You're still required to avoid hitting them with your vehicle.

 

[Glitch]

First try dropping the leftist bs. Second, crossing in the middle of an intersection (jaywalking) is illegal. Guess what? You're still required to avoid hitting them with your vehicle.

Only leftist freaks intentionally violate the law and try to call it a "protest." If you are violating the law you are a rioter. If you are violating the law with the intent of coercing or intimidating government into adopting or altering a policy, then you are a terrorist. Exactly like the BLM and ANTIFA terrorist organizations, which are entirely supported by Democrat filth. Last time I checked we are still at war with terrorist scum.