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

[Dutch Uncle]

Nope. He is not going to be charged.

Time will tell.

 

[Earl]

More importantly, don't start beating on and rocking the vehicle because the driver could be armed...

Indeed as happened in this case.

 

[Earl]

What video games?

Nope. Just a few States...and getting fewer.

Quite a few bears have been taken down with a .22. Even a .22 pistol. The largest grizzly bear ever taken was taken down by a .22 rifle.

Learn to shoot, twit.

You obviously don't give a fuck, shooting at something without having a clear shot and not knowing what is behind it. You're dangerous as a hunter.

So is a .22.

WRONG. The objective in war is to convince the enemy that continued war is futile.

Why are you bringing up strawmen? This event is neither open war nor hunting.


You're not only a lousy hunter, you'd be dangerous in the field. I sure hope you don't kill someone with your carelessness.

Indeed...thanks, great post.

 

[Earl]

In America, a person is allowed to defend them self when he/she fears that their life is in danger.


The driver would probably be either in the hospital or dead had he not defended himself.

Good for him.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

In America, a person is allowed to defend themselves when they are in fear of their life such as a driver using their car as a weapon and driving into a crowd. If someone had shot James Fields as he was racing to into a crowd, perhaps, Heather would still be alive.

I think a lot of this case will depend upon any video or security camera evidence. Comparing this case to the McCloskeys will be interesting. Is it enough that a person aims a gun at you to shoot them?

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/cri...lly-shooting-austin-protester-garrett-foster/
Police released a driver accused of killing Garrett Foster at an Austin protest this weekend, raising questions about whether the shooter will face charges.

The Dallas Morning News talked to legal experts about what could happen in the case. The driver, who police have not identified, could still face criminal charges depending on the findings of the investigation and the decision of Travis County prosecutors. Or, the driver could walk free.

Experts said the case hinges on whether the driver has a solid self defense claim.

In a statement to The News on Monday, the Austin Police Department said it was still investigating the shooting: “APD Homicide is still gathering witness statements and video from the scene to put together the most complete picture of what happened before we make a decision moving forward. Although the issue of self-defense has come up, we will not come to any conclusion about the case until we have gathered all relevant evidence and confer with the [District Attorney’s] Office on the matter.”

Witnesses reported that just before 10 p.m. Saturday, a driver turned down the street toward a crowd of protesters, honking its horn. The driver stopped in the roadway, police said, and Foster approached the driver’s side window while other protesters began striking the car.

Foster carried an AK-47-style rifle. The driver shot Foster from inside the car. Foster died about 30 minutes later. The driver called police to report opening fire after Foster pointed his weapon at the car, police said.

Protesters at the scene dispute this account, according to witnesses at the scene, saying Foster did not point his rifle at the driver. Foster was at the protest with his fiancée, Whitney Mitchell, a quadruple amputee who uses a wheelchair. The two met in North Texas as teenagers.

Police said two men at the protest shot weapons that night. In addition to the driver, another person in the crowd who was not Foster returned fire as the car drove away, they said. Police have also not charged that person.[/I]

 

[Earl]

In America, a person is allowed to defend them self when he/she fears that their life is in danger.


The driver would probably be either in the hospital or dead had he not defended himself.

Good for him.

There is no reason to allow ANTIFA or BLM thugs to attack an American citizen. Those who are attacked have every right to defend themselves.

No amount of shuck and jive or spin will change that.

Ya esta.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Garrett Foster was a Libertarian. Regardless, I support the right of American citizens to self-defense.

The videos of the incident should clarify what happened and who was defending themselves against whom. In that way, the Democrats are getting their forecast proven correct: What happens when two "good guys with a gun" draw on each other?

Obviously the driver of the vehicle was an asshole driver with his car for protection. Why was he on that street?

Obviously the tension of the situation, especially if a crowd surrounded your car and was rocking it would prompt any driver to be in fear of their life. Was the crowd allowed to be there? Were they blocking the road and threatening drivers?

The courts will figure it out, but IMO opinion it doesn't look good for the driver. That could change once more facts are revealed.

https://reason.com/2020/07/27/the-l...ivist-killed-at-a-black-lives-matter-protest/
Garrett Foster, a libertarian activist, was killed on Saturday while attending a Black Lives Matter (BLM) protest in Austin. While the events surrounding his death are still being investigated, libertarians who recognize the importance of being involved in the anti-police brutality protests have expressed their sadness for his loss, and are reminding others that libertarians have both an opportunity and a duty to participate in the current debate on American policing.

Foster attended a BLM protest with his fiancée, Whitney Mitchell. The pair met when they were teenagers and moved to Austin a few years ago. Foster was lauded by his family and several others for the care he provided for Mitchell, a quadruple amputee. Foster and Mitchell were actively involved in local BLM protests following the death of George Floyd at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer.

There is some dispute between the Austin Police Department (APD) and numerous witnesses over details in the official story, Intelligencer reports.

On Saturday, Foster was exercising his right to open-carry an AK-47 rifle, as allowed by Texas state law, and marching alongside fellow protesters. Just before 10 p.m., the protesters crossed the intersection of Fourth Street and Congress Avenue. That's when a driver, who remains unidentified by the APD, aggressively accelerated his car toward the crowd of protesters. The protesters, including Foster, who was pushing Mitchell through the intersection, approached the vehicle in an attempt to get the driver to stop.

Both witnesses on the scene and the APD confirm that the driver fatally shot Foster from the vehicle and that Foster did not discharge his weapon during the encounter. Another member of the crowd returned fire. The APD says both shooters had licenses to carry.

The fact in dispute is whether Foster pointed his weapon at the driver. Austin Police Chief Brian Manley said on Sunday that the driver maintained Foster had aimed his gun towards him, leading him to shoot. Several witnesses say the opposite is true. They maintain that Foster's rifle was pointed downward. The APD has asked for video and pictures from the scene.

While Foster's loved ones grieve, libertarians also honor Foster's life and his commitment to principle. Foster was very vocal about his support for Libertarian Party presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen and vice-presidential candidate Spike Cohen.

Cohen tells Reason that he was "honored" to have someone like Foster in the movement and that Foster will be "greatly missed" by his loved ones and those in the Libertarian Party.

"Garrett Foster understood that libertarianism was about speaking on behalf of those who are the most acutely affected by the abuses perpetrated by an overly aggressive and unaccountable government," Cohen says.

Cohen notes that libertarians "can stand back and allow this movement to be co-opted by authoritarians who push for even worse policies, or," like Foster, "we can take our natural place within this movement, which is largely espousing and advocating for policies that we've been advocating for since we were founded in 1971."

 

[Into the Night]

They did block traffic by jamming up the roads.

You have lost context, trying to invert so many arguments. Done here.

 

[Into the Night]

In America, a person is allowed to defend themselves when they are in fear of their life such as a driver using their car as a weapon and driving into a crowd. If someone had shot James Fields as he was racing to into a crowd, perhaps, Heather would still be alive.

I think a lot of this case will depend upon any video or security camera evidence. Comparing this case to the McCloskeys will be interesting. Is it enough that a person aims a gun at you to shoot them?

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/cri...lly-shooting-austin-protester-garrett-foster/
Police released a driver accused of killing Garrett Foster at an Austin protest this weekend, raising questions about whether the shooter will face charges.

The Dallas Morning News talked to legal experts about what could happen in the case. The driver, who police have not identified, could still face criminal charges depending on the findings of the investigation and the decision of Travis County prosecutors. Or, the driver could walk free.

Experts said the case hinges on whether the driver has a solid self defense claim.

In a statement to The News on Monday, the Austin Police Department said it was still investigating the shooting: “APD Homicide is still gathering witness statements and video from the scene to put together the most complete picture of what happened before we make a decision moving forward. Although the issue of self-defense has come up, we will not come to any conclusion about the case until we have gathered all relevant evidence and confer with the [District Attorney’s] Office on the matter.”

Witnesses reported that just before 10 p.m. Saturday, a driver turned down the street toward a crowd of protesters, honking its horn. The driver stopped in the roadway, police said, and Foster approached the driver’s side window while other protesters began striking the car.

Foster carried an AK-47-style rifle. The driver shot Foster from inside the car. Foster died about 30 minutes later. The driver called police to report opening fire after Foster pointed his weapon at the car, police said.

Protesters at the scene dispute this account, according to witnesses at the scene, saying Foster did not point his rifle at the driver. Foster was at the protest with his fiancée, Whitney Mitchell, a quadruple amputee who uses a wheelchair. The two met in North Texas as teenagers.

Police said two men at the protest shot weapons that night. In addition to the driver, another person in the crowd who was not Foster returned fire as the car drove away, they said. Police have also not charged that person.[/I]

Self defense in both cases. In one case it resulted in a death. That's how they compare. The driver shot the guy with the rifle in self defense. The McClosky's brandished their weapons in self defense...no deaths.

 

[Into the Night]

Garrett Foster was a Libertarian. Regardless, I support the right of American citizens to self-defense.

Lie. You do not support the right of self defense. You never have.

The videos of the incident should clarify what happened and who was defending themselves against whom.

You don't get to declare what should be on the video.

In that way, the Democrats are getting their forecast proven correct: What happens when two "good guys with a gun" draw on each other?

A rioter is not a 'good guy'. They are violent and dangerous.

Obviously the driver of the vehicle was an asshole driver with his car for protection. Why was he on that street?

He has the right to be. He has the right to drive his car on any public roadway.

Obviously the tension of the situation, especially if a crowd surrounded your car and was rocking it would prompt any driver to be in fear of their life.

Duh.

Was the crowd allowed to be there? Were they blocking the road and threatening drivers?

Good question. Yes. They were blocking the road. They were threatening anything that entered their area.

The courts will figure it out, but IMO opinion it doesn't look good for the driver.

Your opinion doesn't matter. You are not the king, the judge, or the jury.

That could change once more facts are revealed.

Irrelevant. Your opinion doesn't matter.

...deleted Holy Link and Quote...
...deleted Emotional Appeal fallacy...
Foster and Mitchell were actively involved in local BLM protests following the death of George Floyd at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer.

Floyd did not necessarily die at the hands of any officer. The autopsy revealed that Floyd was wacked out on fentanyl, a potentially lethal recreational drug that can oft times cause breathing difficulties (due to cardiac impairment) and death, particularly after exertion. Floyd was fighting with the cops during his arrest. If anything, the delay in medical help arriving (they were called when the arrest went sour), certainly didn't help. Floyd was calling out repeatedly that he "couldn't breath", a condition common with fentanyl overdose, as the heart is no longer providing sufficient oxygen to the tissues of the body. Shouting out these words showed that he COULD breath, at least until his heart quit.

Drugs killed Floyd, not the cops, in my opinion. It may very well be the opinion by the jury during the trial of the officers involved as well. We shall see.

There is some dispute between the Austin Police Department (APD) and numerous witnesses over details in the official story, Intelligencer reports.

Define 'official story'. Who owns this 'official story'? Why does this 'official story' a proof of any kind?

On Saturday, Foster was exercising his right to open-carry an AK-47 rifle, as allowed by Texas state law, and marching alongside fellow protesters. Just before 10 p.m., the protesters crossed the intersection of Fourth Street and Congress Avenue. That's when a driver, who remains unidentified by the APD, aggressively accelerated his car toward the crowd of protesters. The protesters, including Foster, who was pushing Mitchell through the intersection, approached the vehicle in an attempt to get the driver to stop.

You are just lying now. The police know who the driver was. The driver is the one that called the police to report the shooting. The word of rioters, causing violence in the city, are not going to have a lot of weight.

Both witnesses on the scene and the APD confirm that the driver fatally shot Foster from the vehicle and that Foster did not discharge his weapon during the encounter. Another member of the crowd returned fire. The APD says both shooters had licenses to carry.

It is currently not known who fired first.

The fact in dispute is whether Foster pointed his weapon at the driver.

Turns out that's not necessary for the driver to shoot in self defense. The car was being attacked by rioters. A man among the rioters shows up carrying a rifle.

Self defense dude.

Austin Police Chief Brian Manley said on Sunday that the driver maintained Foster had aimed his gun towards him, leading him to shoot. Several witnesses say the opposite is true. They maintain that Foster's rifle was pointed downward. The APD has asked for video and pictures from the scene.

Why not? Anything will help the investigation.

While Foster's loved ones grieve, libertarians also honor Foster's life and his commitment to principle. Foster was very vocal about his support for Libertarian Party presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen and vice-presidential candidate Spike Cohen.

Irrelevant. Appeal to emotion fallacy.

Cohen tells Reason that he was "honored" to have someone like Foster in the movement and that Foster will be "greatly missed" by his loved ones and those in the Libertarian Party.

Irrelevant.

"Garrett Foster understood that libertarianism was about speaking on behalf of those who are the most acutely affected by the abuses perpetrated by an overly aggressive and unaccountable government," Cohen says.

Irrelevant. Strawman fallacy.

Cohen notes that libertarians "can stand back and allow this movement to be co-opted by authoritarians who push for even worse policies, or," like Foster, "we can take our natural place within this movement, which is largely espousing and advocating for policies that we've been advocating for since we were founded in 1971."[/I]
...deleted image...

Why is Foster among the rioters? Are the Libertarians advocating the dissolution of police forces also? Have they fallen in with the Democrats in supporting violence, riots, arson, and racism?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Insult fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.

Nope. The car was lawfully on a public street. The rioters started it.

Insult fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.

Insult fallacies. Buzzword fallacy.

City of Austin police records. State of Texas law.

Insult fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.

Wikipedia is not a valid source. They do not own the word 'Nazi'. They do not define it.

Again, you demonstrate that you cannot think for yourself. All you can do is cut and paste the arguments of others, stealing them as your own arguments. You are a nothing.

1. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/what-we-know-about-the-austin-blm-protest-shooting.html Facts you cannot deny or disprove.

2. He has a legal right to drive on the streets, NOT "aggressively" (police description) drive into a crowd of peaceful protesters/demonstrators.

3. You still keep lying about the chain of events, to which the local police (see #1) do not support your version, as the information I provided shows. To date you just deny with no proof.

4. See #1 - 3.

5. See #1-3....the chain of events does not support the driver's action by State or City law....that is why this situation is being investigated.

6. You keep using that silly phrase whenever I provide accurate, historically valid documentation that disproves one of your statements or assertions. Essentially, you're just being insipidly stubborn to no avail.

7. You do realize that your deleting a link in your response does not prevent the reader from clicking back and seeing for themselves how intellectually dishonest you're being, right? Or are you that intellectually impotent. No matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

And spare us all this whine so used by failed right wing parrots. When you get defeated in a general conversation, you cry "no proof, just your word!" And when proof is provided you whine "no personal opinion, just links". the sheer stupidity of your response is your own undoing. Once I've exposed jokers like you for the right wing blowhards that they are, I remove you from my sight as to not waste further space and time. Now, follow me around and squawk like a good little parrot. Adios.

 

[Taichiliberal]

You are not speaking for his actions. You are speaking about his intent, liar. You don't get to speak for the driver. You only get to speak for you.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant. He did. He made a lawful choice.

He didn't. The crowd surrounded him. When he feared for his safety, he became a belligerent and shot the man with the rifle in self defense.

Parrots can dance fairly well. It's rather amusing to watch them do it. They seem to like most any song, but they do seem to favor dance music with a good beat to it.

1. Take a refresher course in reading comprehension, please! I've stated several times that it was his ACTIONS that point to his intent. The police describe it as "aggressively" driving into the crowd. Go argue with them, genius.

2. So now it's irrelevant that he drove aggressively into a crowd of people WHO WERE NOT RIOTING? Are you really this stupid to think that is a rational and logical stance by you? That's the whole crux of the police investigation leading to the shooting, genius. Jeez!

3. See #2

4. See #2

5. See #2

6. See #2

7. Why do you keep lying about this. The FACTS clearly show the crowd surrounded the car AFTER it drove "aggressively" into them. Your insipid stubbornness non-withstanding.

8. Ahh, but right wing parrots stupidly do the same failed dance in denial of facts and logic. You're done.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
In typical intellectual dishonesty of the alt-right mindset, you just leave out those little details that derail your myopic recall. Once more for the intellectually impotent:

Had your hero NOT MADE A CONSCIOUS EFFORT TO TURN HIS CAR INTO THE CROWD AND CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD, HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFRONTED.

Your second sentence is just blowing smoke that is NOT relative to the events being discussed.

Your 3rd sentence is for the cops and local courts to deal with. Pretty hypocritical of folk like you to try and now suddenly be concerned about AR-15's in the general population after advocating for just that. Now, since black folk take advantage of a situation that YOU and your ilk previously advocating for, you've got an issue? Puh-leeze!

The driver did not drive over any protestor.

Didn't say he did...he did accelerate into a crowd of people in a "aggressive" (police description) manner, forcing the crowd to surround him to slow him down BEFORE he hurt someone. Got that, bunky? Now go blow smoke somewhere else.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
And once again our resident right wing wonk adds his supposition and conjecture onto a video that DOES NOT SAY WHAT OUR RIGHT WING WONK CONCLUDES.

Where was Volsrock similar analysis when right wing militia men were carrying same/similar weapons to town halls, to protest outside municipal buildings, to "defend" an illegal cattle drive or to occupy a federal land office?

GMAFB, you 3rd rate propagandist.

Inversion fallacy. The driver was lawfully driving his car. He broke no law. The rioters were breaking the law. They were occupying a street. They were causing violence and mayhem. They attacked his car. A man that was part of the rioting crowd approached the car with a rifle. The driver was in fear for his life and safety. The shooting was in self defense.

There is no "inversion", you fool! I am pointing out a FACT as to the hypocrisy of your like minded brethren. And YOU keep parroting LIES....as to date the local cops DID NOT ISSUE ANY ARREST WARRANTS OR CITATIONS AGAINST THE DEMONSTRATORS/PROTESTERS FOR RIOTING. The driver "aggressively" drove into a crowd of people, who stopped him before someone got run over....THAT'S WHEN THE SHOOTING STARTED. Had the imbecile not been so belligerent, nothing would have happened....which is why there is an investigation as to the chain of events that led to the shooting.

Your pathetic parroting of lies and half truths is becoming boring....you're done.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

There is no "inversion", you fool! I am pointing out a FACT as to the hypocrisy of your like minded brethren. And YOU keep parroting LIES....as to date the local cops DID NOT ISSUE ANY ARREST WARRANTS OR CITATIONS AGAINST THE DEMONSTRATORS/PROTESTERS FOR RIOTING. The driver "aggressively" drove into a crowd of people, who stopped him before someone got run over....THAT'S WHEN THE SHOOTING STARTED. Had the imbecile not been so belligerent, nothing would have happened....which is why there is an investigation as to the chain of events that led to the shooting.

Your pathetic parroting of lies and half truths is becoming boring....you're done.

You're letting yourself get upset over a person who is few fries short of a Happy Meal....which makes you look the same.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
I'd like to see you say that at the next right wing yahoos who bring guns and block up traffic to a protest. And when they get their asses shot off, don't you dare try to shovel your hypocrisy.

They don't block traffic. They respect the law.

Either you're a liar or ignorant or both: https://www.kcrw.com/news/shows/pre...courts-amid-covid-19/white-supremacy-protests

https://indyweek.com/news/northcarolina/boogaloo-alt-right-protesters-raleigh/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/04/16/michigan-whitmer-conservatives-protest/

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Polly seems to be incapable of mounting a logical response, so his/her little brain is stuck on repeat. Squawk, Polly, squawk.

Denial of logic.

As is your forte, Polly, as the chronology of the posts shows. No more wasting time and space on your stubborn blather.

 

[Into the Night]

1. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/what-we-know-about-the-austin-blm-protest-shooting.html Facts you cannot deny or disprove.

Buzzword fallacy. Learn what 'fact' means. These are not facts. Try English. It works better. False authority fallacy.

2. He has a legal right to drive on the streets,

Correct.

NOT "aggressively" (police description) drive into a crowd of peaceful protesters/demonstrators.

Manufactured event. False authority fallacy.

3. You still keep lying about the chain of events,

No, YOU keep making up a chain of events.

to which the local police (see #1) do not support your version,

You don't get to speak for any policeman. You only get to speak for you. Bigotry.

as the information I provided shows.

Not a proof. False authority fallacy.

To date you just deny with no proof.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.

5. the chain of events does not support the driver's action by State or City law....that is why this situation is being investigated.

You are again making up a chain of events. False authority fallacy.

6. You keep using that silly phrase whenever I provide accurate, historically valid documentation that disproves one of your statements or assertions.

No proof possible. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). False authority fallacy.

Essentially, you're just being insipidly stubborn to no avail.

Inversion fallacy. Fundamentalism.

7. You do realize that your deleting a link in your response does not prevent the reader from clicking back and seeing for themselves how intellectually dishonest you're being, right?

Irrelevant. I usually remove Holy Links in responses because they are meaningless and do not contribute anything.

Or are you that intellectually impotent.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is copy and pasting (and stealing) the arguments of others as your own.

No matter....deleted Holy Link...

False authority fallacy. You cannot use Wikipedia as a source with me on anything. They do not define 'Nazi'. They do not own the acronym.

And spare us all this whine so used by failed right wing parrots.

Insult fallacy.

When you get defeated in a general conversation,

Assumption of victory fallacy.

you cry "no proof, just your word!"

Inversion fallacy.

And when proof is provided

Invalid proof. False authority fallacy. Fundamentalism.

you whine "no personal opinion, just links".

Inversion fallacy.

the sheer stupidity of your response is your own undoing.

Inversion fallacy.

Once I've exposed jokers like you for the right wing blowhards that they are,

Assumption of victory fallacy.

I remove you from my sight as to not waste further space and time. Now, follow me around and squawk like a good little parrot. Adios.

Fine. Put me on your ignore list. Enjoy yourself in the kiddie pool. Thank you for removing yourself from the conversation.

 

[Into the Night]

1. Take a refresher course in reading comprehension, please! I've stated several times that it was his ACTIONS that point to his intent. The police describe it as "aggressively" driving into the crowd. Go argue with them, genius.

2. So now it's irrelevant that he drove aggressively into a crowd of people WHO WERE NOT RIOTING? Are you really this stupid to think that is a rational and logical stance by you? That's the whole crux of the police investigation leading to the shooting, genius. Jeez!

3. See #2

4. See #2

5. See #2

6. See #2

7. Why do you keep lying about this. The FACTS clearly show the crowd surrounded the car AFTER it drove "aggressively" into them. Your insipid stubbornness non-withstanding.

8. Ahh, but right wing parrots stupidly do the same failed dance in denial of facts and logic. You're done.

No argument presented. Denial of English. Manufactured history. RQAA. Denial of logic. Buzzword fallacies. Assumption of victory fallacies.

 

[Into the Night]

Didn't say he did...he did accelerate into a crowd of people in a "aggressive" (police description) manner, forcing the crowd to surround him to slow him down BEFORE he hurt someone. Got that, bunky? Now go blow smoke somewhere else.

Manufactured event. Fake news.