More on Austin shooting

[SkyFox76]

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



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.






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






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.





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.



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.





And the driver's right to protect himself.



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





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.

As an Uber driver there's a very huge chance he knew that street was occupied by protestors by way of his GPS (as well as an app) because they don't want to be wasting time or gas. Yet his claim was he had no idea this group (who was being monitored by several law enforcement agencies) was occupying that street.

And nothing changes the fact he could clearly see his headlights shining on several people while nowhere close to being fully engaged in the turn, so he had ample time to stop, back up and not engage them.

 

[Wayne Jr]

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

Well you're wrong, so...

 

[SkyFox76]

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.




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???????????????



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.




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




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.



Logic fail.

Had this been as simple as honking his horn we'd probably not be discussing this.

What's funny is you say a person can use reasonable force when one fears for their life. Driving directly into the group initiated aggressive behavior on Perry's part which caused people to fear for their lives, so they banged on his car, and he was approached by Foster. Perry is 100% the party who literally set the wheels in motion for this incident, then got scared by the reaction of the people he almost ran over.

Idk if you're aware of the Texas case where some old guy was pissed off about a neighborhood party so he walked to their house armed with a gun and his phone. When a couple of people from the party came up to talk to him he started claiming (so the cell phone recording could document) he was in fear for his life. He shot and killed the owner of the home. The jury didn't buy his SYG defense due to the fact he was the initial aggressor who put himself into the situation (just like Perry) and he was sentenced to 40 years.

What stands out in this case is there were at least 4 other cars at that intersection and I'll bet you couldn't tell me a single thing about the driver's. Other than they didn't play stupid by using their cars in an aggressive manner.

 

[SkyFox76]

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.

Ty for pointing out you're not big on facts and simply lash out with what you think happened. Not the first time and sure it won't be the last.

Lt. Darren Green of the Michigan State Police estimated several thousand cars were part of the demonstration, with 100 to 150 people on the Capitol lawn. Green said traffic was backed up for more than a mile around the Capitol in several directions.

"This is our busiest time of year," said Heyboer, who drove to Lansing for the demonstration dubbed "Operation Gridlock" because organizers said wanted to gain attention by tying up traffic.

Lansing, Michigan protest: Demonstrations against Gov. Whitmer's order

 

[SkyFox76]

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

Yep 2A is all good to go until the guy using it is someone they oppose. Then it's a whole new ballgame.

 

[swing_voter]

The police are investigating.

The police have asked surrounding businesses if their security cams captured video of the event.


Maybe we'll find out for sure.

 

[Glitch]

Ty for pointing out you're not big on facts and simply lash out with what you think happened. Not the first time and sure it won't be the last.

Lansing, Michigan protest: Demonstrations against Gov. Whitmer's order

Why am I not surprised that you think it is illegal for vehicles to be on the road?

It is illegal for pedestrians to block traffic without either a permit or a police escort. It is not illegal for vehicles to be on the road. Nor it is illegal for LOTS of vehicles to be on the road. Do try to get a clue eventually. Typical leftist.

 

[Ikari]

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

 

[dave8383]

View attachment 67290028

Jesus.

 

[SkyFox76]

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.

Cool, then go ahead and say it. The incident in MI dubbed "Operation Gridlock"wasn't a protest, it was a riot. They even stated their intentions were to tie up traffic and that's exactly what they did.

Hours before the event started, bumper-to-bumper traffic backed up West Allegan Street for blocks, with vehicles blaring their horns.

About 2 p.m., traffic backed up the I-496 interstate for at least six miles, ranging from trucks pulling fishing boats to HVAC utility vehicles.

And I suppose now you can also agree that their (illegal) rioting was to intimidate the governor into changing her legal stay at home order.

Do you want to keep going?

 

[SkyFox76]

Why am I not surprised that you think it is illegal for vehicles to be on the road?

It is illegal for pedestrians to block traffic without either a permit or a police escort. It is not illegal for vehicles to be on the road. Nor it is illegal for LOTS of vehicles to be on the road. Do try to get a clue eventually. Typical leftist.

Why am I surprised that you can't understand using vehicles to create a traffic jam is no different than protestors blocking traffic and it's illegal.

The Wednesday protest was organized by the Michigan Conservative Coalition, which told supporters to "come ready for a potentially major traffic jam around the (taxpayer-funded) Michigan Capitol Building."

Who do you think can get out of the way quicker if the fire department or EMTs need to get down a street? Pedestrians or vehicles?

 

[Court Jester]

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, I would add to this sentiment that the constitution only protects what is already a "Natural Right" to self protection. The founding fathers did not create the right keep and bear arms; what they did was acknowledge it as being moral and necessary, and then elected rightly to protect it.... along with all of the other constitutional protections of natural rights. A situation which did not exist under Britain's monarchs then, or even now.

Thanks for your great posts,

CJ

 

[Glitch]

Cool, then go ahead and say it. The incident in MI dubbed "Operation Gridlock"wasn't a protest, it was a riot. They even stated their intentions were to tie up traffic and that's exactly what they did.

And I suppose now you can also agree that their (illegal) rioting was to intimidate the governor into changing her legal stay at home order.

Do you want to keep going?

Did Operation Gridlock violate the law? No. Therefore it was a protest and not a riot. Why am I not surprised that you are incapable of comprehending the difference? Only the mentally-deranged leftists are always violent, always violating the law, and then pretend it is some kind of protest. Which demonstrates just how insane the left truly are. They have no grasp of reality and are obviously a danger to society. They need to be locked up in mental institutions. If that won't happen then try to keep in mind that I will always be armed when in the presence of the mentally-deranged and extremely violent left.

 

[Rich2018]

Jesus.

Drive a car into that crowd and see how they react !!!

 

[Glitch]

Glitch, I would add to this sentiment that the constitution only protects what is already a "Natural Right" to self protection. The founding fathers did not create the right keep and bear arms; what they did was acknowledge it as being moral and necessary, and then elected rightly to protect it.... along with all of the other constitutional protections of natural rights. A situation which did not exist under Britain's monarchs then, or even now.

Thanks for your great posts,

CJ

Actually, it did exist under Britain's monarchs then. The Second Amendment can trace its roots to the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 that documented the liberties of all "free men." The Anti-Federalists wanted to ensure the Federalists could not use a select federal militia or a federal standing army and restrict the States from forming their own militias. So they created the Second Amendment to ensure that every individual had the right to keep and bear arms, which could not be infringed upon by Congress, thus allowing the States to create their own militias without federal interference.

When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 all the Bill of Rights should have immediately applied to the States. However, the Supreme Court decided to use "selective" incorporation, and only applying the specific Amendment to the States when the matter came before the court. Which meant that the First Amendment would not apply to the States until Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), and the Second Amendment would not apply to the States until McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)

The Supreme Court finally got around to incorporating the Eighth Amendment and applying it to the States with Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___ in February 2019. That is 151 years States were allowed to violate the Eighth Amendment with impunity. Or 142 years for the Second Amendment, thanks to the insane selective incorporation used by the Supreme Court.

That makes every law requiring a permit of any kind, from any State, unconstitutional. No Concealed Carry Permit, or any kind of Carry Permit from any State is legal.

 

[Rich2018]

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.

So you're saying all that Perry did was to politely sound his horn to ask the prtesters to make a way through ?

Hmmm...somehow the evidence seems to contradict that

You're just talking like Perry's apologist. Perry caused the disturbance, no-one else

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

So are you now saying that Foster pointed his rifle at Perry ?

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.

To repeat, are you saying Foster (or anybody) pointed a firearm at Perry to cause a reasonable threat to his life ?

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

Austin police probably won't, charge him. A federal agency might though
I think it's safe to say his army career is over though as few will want to serve under him or even will him

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.

You know that attitude gives license to all manner of criminal activity

Logic fail.

How so ?

If he goes to trial, you can bet the prosecution will make great capital out of that fact
He disregarded company rules, therefore he was rebellious of authority.

 

[SkyFox76]

Did Operation Gridlock violate the law? No. Therefore it was a protest and not a riot. Why am I not surprised that you are incapable of comprehending the difference? Only the mentally-deranged leftists are always violent, always violating the law, and then pretend it is some kind of protest. Which demonstrates just how insane the left truly are. They have no grasp of reality and are obviously a danger to society. They need to be locked up in mental institutions. If that won't happen then try to keep in mind that I will always be armed when in the presence of the mentally-deranged and extremely violent left.

YES it violated the law. Vehicles cannot legally block the flow of traffic which is exactly what they did. It was their stated intent. The fact you aren't aware of that is astounding.

Legality

Most jurisdictions consider the obstruction of traffic an illegal activity and have developed rules to prosecute those who block, obstruct, impede, or otherwise interfere with the normal flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic upon a public street or highway. Some jurisdictions also penalize slow moving vehicle traffic. The unimpeded flow of traffic in the public road-space is often considered a common right.

When they wanted to do the same thing in Colorado they were flat out told it's illegal.

“Drive to the Capitol in Denver and gridlock the roads in protest to the mandatory lockdowns and violation of constitutional rights we are seeing in Colorado and across the nation,” the event page reads.

City spokesperson Erika R. Martinez said in a statement on Friday that while officials “understand people are frustrated with our current situation,” the stay-at-home order helps protect the welfare of the city’s communities.

“Operation Gridlock would be a wholly irresponsible and reckless way to express those frustrations,” Martinez said in a statement. “We must remind everyone that it is illegal to willfully block a public right-of-way.”

The MI gridlock was something like 8 hours. That means during that time no emergency vehicles could make their way for a fire or medical emergency. I don't know what planet you live on but even not pulling to right for those vehicles to pass by is illegal, and yet you seem to think blocking entire blocks is fine.

:doh

 

[Rich2018]

YES it violated the law. Vehicles cannot legally block the flow of traffic which is exactly what they did. It was their stated intent.

Protesters are generally allowed to march down the street if there's enough of them

Police will often close roads to vehicular traffic in such cases.

 

[SkyFox76]

Protesters are generally allowed to march down the street if there's enough of them

Police will often close roads to vehicular traffic in such cases.

In the statement from the Austin pd I think he named 4 agencies that were working the protest the night Foster was shot. It fairly obvious how close they were when you see they were trying to aid Foster within seconds.

This is the second thread that Glitch has stumbled into where he has no idea what went on. The first was the Seattle I-5 incident where it had to be pointed out the freeway had been shut down each evening because of protestors and now this one where he comically starts out saying Operation Gridlock didn't block any traffic. Then once it's pointed out the point was to tie up traffic he then decides that vehicles blocking traffic for 8 hours isn't illegal. He just might be that guy that you see when a fire truck is approaching, lights flashing, siren blaring, horn honking, he just stays there right in the way as everybody else moves to the side as required by law. :shrug:

 

[Rich2018]

In the statement from the Austin pd I think he named 4 agencies that were working the protest the night Foster was shot. It fairly obvious how close they were when you see they were trying to aid Foster within seconds.

This is the second thread that Glitch has stumbled into where he has no idea what went on. The first was the Seattle I-5 incident where it had to be pointed out the freeway had been shut down each evening because of protestors and now this one where he comically starts out saying Operation Gridlock didn't block any traffic. Then once it's pointed out the point was to tie up traffic he then decides that vehicles blocking traffic for 8 hours isn't illegal. He just might be that guy that you see when a fire truck is approaching, lights flashing, siren blaring, horn honking, he just stays there right in the way as everybody else moves to the side as required by law. :shrug:

If they were that close, it undermines Perry's claim that he felt his life was in danger.

 

[SkyFox76]

If they were that close, it undermines Perry's claim that he felt his life was in danger.

There is a video shot by one of Foster's friends (possibly the one the screen shot is taken from showing the angle of the gun) and police are there almost instantly. One witness says 20 seconds. I'm thinking the video has been taken down because it was pretty graphic in showing Foster on the ground and his fiance screaming. Manley's statement:



Around the 5 minute he talks about the quick response and makes it clear that the officers were there and allowing the protest to take place.

 

[Rich2018]

There is a video shot by one of Foster's friends (possibly the one the screen shot is taken from showing the angle of the gun) and police are there almost instantly. One witness says 20 seconds. I'm thinking the video has been taken down because it was pretty graphic in showing Foster on the ground and his fiance screaming. Manley's statement:



Around the 5 minute he talks about the quick response and makes it clear that the officers were there and allowing the protest to take place.

So the defense of Perry's legal team is crucially undermined., wouldn't you say ?

 

[BlueTex]

Guilty of murder...

The trial for Daniel Perry ended Friday, and after jury deliberation, he was found guilty of murder for the death of a man during a 2020 Black Lives Matter protest.

Perry faced one count of murder and another count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after the deadly shooting of Garrett Foster in the streets of downtown Austin on July 25, 2020. While he was found guilty of murder, the jury found that he was not guilty of the aggravated assault charge.

In a release, Travis County DA José Garza released a statement Friday afternoon.

“I’m grateful to our dedicated career prosecutors and victims’ counselors who tried this case. They worked hard to make a complete and accurate presentation of the facts to the jury. Our hearts continue to break for the Foster family. We hope this verdict brings closure and peace to the victim’s family.”
TRAVIS COUNTY DA JOSÉ GARZA

Daniel Perry found guilty of murder in protester’s death

The trial for Daniel Perry ended Friday, and after jury deliberation, he was found guilty/not guilty of murder for the death of a man during a 2020 Black Lives Matter protest.

www.kxan.com