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

[Aryeh Jay]

Did you notice that not one of them accidentally shot one, two or even three of their own.

Proper gun safety is an important of gun ownership.

 

[Arc F1]

Garrett Foster Brought His Gun to Austin Protests. Then He Was Shot Dead.
These cowards in cars need to be arrested, prosecuted and convicted, not encouraged.

Who was it that had the right to be in the street? Was it the guy in the car or the people walking in the middle of the road that attacked him? When it's you or a member of your family at the mercy of the mob my guess is that you will see things differently.

 

[Arc F1]

Proper gun safety is an important of gun ownership.

It was a reference to the black mafia guy who shot three of his own during the protests the other day.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

It was a reference to the black mafia guy who shot three of his own during the protests the other day.

“a woman's weapon was accidentally discharged. Johnson referred to the woman as a trainee.”

3 members of armed militia injured in shooting at Breonna Taylor protest


As I said previously…

Proper gun safety is an important of gun ownership.

(Even for Black Mafia Guys and Gals)

 

[iluvatar5150]

False analogy alert!

Someone with a gun would not have good cause to be scared of others who were part of the same cause/protest/demonstration. But if you approach someone who is not part of your cause/protest/demonstration while carrying an assault weapon, you'd better take great care that you don't spook them in any way whatsoever.

Furthermore, from the article:

Austin’s police chief, Brian Manley, told reporters on Sunday that as the motorist turned, a crowd of protesters surrounded the vehicle, and some struck the car.

BLM protesters have a deserved reputation for attacking vehicles, including those belonging to law enforcement, and trying to intimidate and/or attack the occupants. I'm not really surprised that the driver panicked and felt the need to defend themself.

Nice. Also from the article... in fact, in the paragraph immediately preceding what you quoted:

The police and witnesses said the man in the car turned it aggressively toward the marchers, and Mr. Foster then approached it. The driver opened fire, shooting Mr. Foster three times. He was rushed to a hospital and was later pronounced dead.

Your paragraph suggests that Mr Garret was the aggressor, while the one preceding it suggests that it was the driver/shooter. I've already posted a link to a video of the scene where it happened. I haven't been able to see which car was the shooter or even a car turning aggressively, but the general tone seems to be peaceful with people walking through the intersection until a couple seconds prior to the shooting.

I really don't know why @SummerMadness draws attention to these kind of incidents. In my opinion they often involve BLM protestors behaving in a sub-optimal, confrontational manner prior to someone panicking and a tragic shooting occurring. And it was obvious BLM cared nothing for lives when they failed to pause for thought after multiple children had been shot dead as a result of all the chaos and lawlessness they are stirring up.

I don't know why people have to cherry pick quotes to fit their narrative.

Who was it that had the right to be in the street? Was it the guy in the car or the people walking in the middle of the road that attacked him? When it's you or a member of your family at the mercy of the mob my guess is that you will see things differently.

If a group or entity is already in the intersection, then they typically get right-of-way. Even if individuals were guilty of crossing against the light, that wouldn't give somebody license to drive into them.

 

[Arc F1]

Nice. Also from the article... in fact, in the paragraph immediately preceding what you quoted:



Your paragraph suggests that Mr Garret was the aggressor, while the one preceding it suggests that it was the driver/shooter. I've already posted a link to a video of the scene where it happened. I haven't been able to see which car was the shooter or even a car turning aggressively, but the general tone seems to be peaceful with people walking through the intersection until a couple seconds prior to the shooting.



I don't know why people have to cherry pick quotes to fit their narrative.



If a group or entity is already in the intersection, then they typically get right-of-way. Even if individuals were guilty of crossing against the light, that wouldn't give somebody license to drive into them.

The one thing I noticed in the videos was that as soon as the horn blew people immediately ran towards the car. This is becoming more common everyday. People are being surrounded and trapped. I had this conversation with my wife yesterday and suggested that if she is in that position don't wait until they shoot at you, just floor it and get out of the situation. These protests have gone beyond peaceful.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The one thing I noticed in the videos was that as soon as the horn blew people immediately ran towards the car. This is becoming more common everyday. People are being surrounded and trapped. I had this conversation with my wife yesterday and suggested that if she is in that position don't wait until they shoot at you, just floor it and get out of the situation. These protests have gone beyond peaceful.

I just watched it again a couple more times and I finally see what I believe is the car in question. At about -3:44 (i.e. 3:44 before the end, which is how facebook shows timestamps), you can see a dark-colored car on the opposite side of the intersection turn right (i.e. to the camera's left) directly into the crowd.

ImHiram - Hiram Live - Austin, TX

It's hard to see - it's even hard to pause the video at the right moment because it's mostly obscured by people and FB's timeline scrubbing is garbage. About all I can catch are the headlights and 1-2 wheels, but it's there. If that's the car in question, then they were 100% the aggressors. The crowd didn't surround them; they drove into the crowd.

 

[Arc F1]

I just watched it again a couple more times and I finally see what I believe is the car in question. At about -3:44 (i.e. 3:44 before the end, which is how facebook shows timestamps), you can see a dark-colored car on the opposite side of the intersection turn right (i.e. to the camera's left) directly into the crowd.

ImHiram - Hiram Live - Austin, TX

It's hard to see - it's even hard to pause the video at the right moment because it's mostly obscured by people and FB's timeline scrubbing is garbage. About all I can catch are the headlights and 1-2 wheels, but it's there. If that's the car in question, then they were 100% the aggressors. The crowd didn't surround them; they drove into the crowd.

I couldn't watch it all. All the cursing and ignorance coming out of their mouths makes me angry. There's no message of unity or equality only ignorance. I stopped at the part that says if you think all lives matter then go home.

 

[JustSomeBloke]

Nice. Also from the article... in fact, in the paragraph immediately preceding what you quoted:



Your paragraph suggests that Mr Garret was the aggressor, while the one preceding it suggests that it was the driver/shooter. I've already posted a link to a video of the scene where it happened. I haven't been able to see which car was the shooter or even a car turning aggressively, but the general tone seems to be peaceful with people walking through the intersection until a couple seconds prior to the shooting.



I don't know why people have to cherry pick quotes to fit their narrative.



If a group or entity is already in the intersection, then they typically get right-of-way. Even if individuals were guilty of crossing against the light, that wouldn't give somebody license to drive into them.

The right to protest also comes with responsibilities:

You don’t need a permit to march in the streets or on sidewalks, as long as marchers don’t obstruct car or pedestrian traffic. If you don’t have a permit, police officers can ask you to move to the side of a street or sidewalk to let others pass or for safety reasons.

Certain types of events may require permits. These include a march or parade that requires blocking traffic or street closure; a large rally requiring the use of sound amplifying devices; or a rally over a certain size at most parks or plazas.

Protesters’ Rights

Did the protesters submit an application for the right to block traffic? If not then they should have moved immediately when they saw the car, instead of swarming the vehicle and causing the driver to fear for their life.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I couldn't watch it all. All the cursing and ignorance coming out of their mouths makes me angry. There's no message of unity or equality only ignorance. I stopped at the part that says if you think all lives matter then go home.

You can skip ahead to the last ~5 minutes.

The right to protest also comes with responsibilities:

You don’t need a permit to march in the streets or on sidewalks, as long as marchers don’t obstruct car or pedestrian traffic. If you don’t have a permit, police officers can ask you to move to the side of a street or sidewalk to let others pass or for safety reasons.

Certain types of events may require permits. These include a march or parade that requires blocking traffic or street closure; a large rally requiring the use of sound amplifying devices; or a rally over a certain size at most parks or plazas.

Protesters’ Rights

That's great. If you want to write them all jaywalking tickets, have at it.

Did the protesters submit an application for the right to block traffic? If not then they should have moved immediately when they saw the car, instead of swarming the vehicle and causing the driver to fear for their life.

If people are standing in the street illegally, I'm not allowed to just run my car into them. Again, if the car I pointed out is the correct car, then the car drove into the crowd; they didn't swarm it.

 

[JustSomeBloke]

That's great. If you want to write them all jaywalking tickets, have at it.

I don't understand why you think that is an appropriate or intelligent response. Every policing system in the world that I know of relies on the vast majority of the population to be well behaved for the vast majority of the time. A small but significant minority of citizens can quickly overwhelm just about any police force. Do you want to see a policing system that relies on tracking every single citizen 100% of the time, so that every misdemeanour, no matter how small, can be punished? BLM have been pushing the limits of acceptable protest for a long time. Combined with Democrat mayors who seem to like seeing their cities and federal buildings trashed, effective policing is becoming almost impossible in some areas.

If people are standing in the street illegally, I'm not allowed to just run my car into them. Again, if the car I pointed out is the correct car, then the car drove into the crowd; they didn't swarm it.

I never said anyone was allowed to run people over. However, I suspect that BLM did not have a permit for stopping traffic when that man was tragically shot. Is it normal procedure for police to close roads in the US once a permit application has been received and authorised? That is what would happen in the UK. If BLM have decided to ignore official procedures or deviated from an agreed route, then they are partly responsible for confrontations between protestors and drivers.

I can't be bothered to give your posts any more attention. Your responses indicate that you are probably not a serious, sincere debater.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I don't understand why you think that is an appropriate or intelligent response. Every policing system in the world that I know of relies on the vast majority of the population to be well behaved for the vast majority of the time. A small but significant minority of citizens can quickly overwhelm just about any police force. Do you want to see a policing system that relies on tracking every single citizen 100% of the time, so that every misdemeanour, no matter how small, can be punished? BLM have been pushing the limits of acceptable protest for a long time. Combined with Democrat mayors who seem to like seeing their cities and federal buildings trashed, effective policing is becoming almost impossible in some areas.


I never said anyone was allowed to run people over. However, I suspect that BLM did not have a permit for stopping traffic when that man was tragically shot. Is it normal procedure for police to close roads in the US once a permit application has been received and authorised? That is what would happen in the UK. If BLM have decided to ignore official procedures or deviated from an agreed route, then they are partly responsible for confrontations between protestors and drivers.

I can't be bothered to give your posts any more attention. Your responses indicate that you are probably not a serious, sincere debater.

My response was quite serious. The question of the marchers having a permit is irrelevant - in this context, it's nothing but a red herring. If the dispute had involved people fighting over a parking space, or being written a ticket, then it would be relevant. But that wasn't what the dispute was about. The dispute was about somebody driving their car into a crowd of people. And whether or not the crowd was allowed to be there, the guy was not allowed to drive his car into them. The blame is on the driver.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yep! Here are some brave White Patriots shouting in the face of the Michigan State Police because they couldn't get haircuts or take their boats out.
View attachment 281728

Yelling rather than burning down buildings and looting businesses and assaulting innocent motorists who just want to drive by? How terrible!

 

[Aldebaran]

When protesters for liberal causes have guns, then it is not a problem. Guns are only for the right kind of people.

Correct! They're for those who can handle them properly and not "accidently" shoot their fellow rioters.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Yelling rather than burning down buildings and looting businesses and assaulting innocent motorists who just want to drive by? How terrible!

Well, they were just protesting about haircuts and their Constitutionally protected right to go motor boating. I supposed if there was a hundred or so year history of them being denied rights and systematically targeted and killed by law enforcement it could be different.

 

[Aldebaran]

Well, they were just protesting about haircuts and their Constitutionally protected right to go motor boating. I supposed if there was a hundred or so year history of them being denied rights and systematically targeted and killed by law enforcement it could be different.

I thought it was because they didn't like their Uncle Ben and Aunt Jamima.
But a system of criminals who make it a habit of resisting arrest, grabbing officers' guns and attempt to use them against officers usually results in a system where the criminal gets shot, regardless of their color.
Perhaps the criminals should engage in a different system. Rioting in the streets is simply handing the consequences over to the populace to meet out.

 

[SummerMadness]

It's sad when people cannot agree that you're not allowed to drive your car into a group of people. Then again, the same folks complained about the counter protesters in Charlottesville.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I thought it was because they didn't like their Uncle Ben and Aunt Jamima.
But a system of criminals who make it a habit of resisting arrest, grabbing officers' guns and attempt to use them against officers usually results in a system where the criminal gets shot, regardless of their color.
Perhaps the criminals should engage in a different system. Rioting in the streets is simply handing the consequences over to the populace to meet out.

Nope, this was six weeks before Aunt Jemima and a month before George Floyd was killed. No, these armed White Patriots were out with their AR-15’s protesting the tyranny of not being able to go fishing or get a haircut. Things That Matter.

 

[JustSomeBloke]

It's sad when people cannot agree that you're not allowed to drive your car into a group of people. Then again, the same folks complained about the counter protesters in Charlottesville.

Your Logical Fallacy is known as 'Strawman'

You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.​

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.

Example: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending.

Your logical fallacy is strawman

 

[Ironhold]

It's sad when people cannot agree that you're not allowed to drive your car into a group of people. Then again, the same folks complained about the counter protesters in Charlottesville.

1. Was the group in question permitted to be there?

2. Did they block the road to prevent traffic?

If the answer to either one is "no" then it's understandable how a person could blunder right into them, especially in the wee hours.