TX: one dead at shooting during police protest in downtown Austin tonight

[The Annoyed Man]

Foreign news services are reporting that the dead guy was armed and may have pointed his rifle at the car and may fired his rifle prior to being shot. As far as I can see none of the US news sources are making any mention the possibility of him firing first. They mostly claimed that he was pushing his crippled girlfriend around in a wheelchair

Also apparently had a license to carry.

If this is being reported, it’s weird how the Democrat Steno Pool (AKA “the media”) ignores the fact that having an LTC has nothing to do with carrying a rifle around, and then using it in a felony assault with intent to kill.

[sidebar]Even though I have a license, I am philosophically opposed to the idea that a license should even be required for the exercise of a constitutionally enumerated right. And yet, out of the 20 or so people I fingerprint every single day for an LTC, there are usually a couple that leave me with the distinct impression that they probably shouldn’t be carrying a gun around. Not my call, and I wouldn’t exercise it even if it were my call to make, but still.....

[The Annoyed Man]

This story continues to unfold. As always, there are a thousand versions of it already being thrown about. I'm surprised somebody hasn't claimed he was saying "hands up, don't shoot." Article here has lots of pics and text.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... otest.html

That headline though....

PICTURED: Armed BLM protester shot dead alongside his quadruple amputee fiancee during Austin march by motorist who drove into crowd and opened fire

Is THAT what happened? That’s not what others are reporting.

[The Annoyed Man]

This is an interesting case for us to study. Latest reports are two LTCs (yes, the media did use the term CHL) involved. The driver turned to drive into a street blocked by the protest. No mention from the police yet if the street was closed for the protest or not, which may make a difference. Some people are saying the driver tried to run down the protesters, so others surrounded the car and started banging on it. While I am tempted to want to run down protesters just for blocking the street, I am pretty sure it isn't legal. This again may make a difference to the legal case. As the people started banging on the car, the deceased came over and is reported to have pointed the rifle at the driver. We do not know his intent, but it is reasonable that, based on national media reporting the driver honestly believed he was going to be shot or attacked (crowd banging on the car combined with man coming over with a rifle and pointing it at him). Driver fires a string of shots at the armed man, causing a lot of the crowd to scatter. Driver speeds off and as he does so, another LTC in the crowd shoots at his car to try to stop him). Driver gets to a safe spot and calls the police to report the shooting. Driver cooperates with APD in investigation and is released pending further investigation. Second LTC also is identified and picked up for questioning by APD. He also cooperates and, I believe, is released by APD pending further investigation.

My call is that the driver will not be charged unless there is evidence he was deliberately trying to run down protesters. If he was driving on a closed off street or trying to run down the protesters, he will be charged with murder. If no evidence of that, he is freed based on self-defense. Second shooter will probably be set free based on defense of others (stopping person fleeing after an assault). But the second shooter may be charged with agg. assault or deadly conduct anyway. His defense is the weakest in the bunch, IMO. I think most people on this board have already state that the best thing to do if you are not directly threatened by a crime is to simply be the best witness possible. His actions confirm that as a good idea to me.

I have said before that people should never confuse issues by bringing in extraneous issues. The deceased was absolutely within his rights by carrying a rifle at the protest. What good did it to, though? His carrying now leaves his disabled girlfriend on her own. He might have thought he was helping people, either other protesters or the driver, but it did no good at all. The second LTC was also within his rights to carry at the protest. He thought he saw a crime and tried to stop the person from leaving. Now he stand a good chance of facing criminal charges and a trial. Even if he wins, he is going through a stressful and possibly expensive process.

srothstein wins the Internet today for clear-headed analysis.

[AF-Odin]

Unfortunately, the media is NOT doing any clear headed analysis and is doing its usual jumping to conclusions and spinning their own narrative. Local news is comparing it to Charlottesville saying driver recklessly drove into the crowd and started shooting peaceful demonstrators. Rather than the news media spin, I would like to wait and hear what the APD and possibly DPS have to say.

[Middle Age Russ]

I wasn't there and I hope the investigation brings to light most of the circumstances related to this shooting.

The deceased was absolutely within his rights by carrying a rifle at the protest.

Yes, the deceased was absolutely acting within his rights. However, carrying a firearm in the middle of a protest seems a bit like filling up a gas tank too close to someone who is welding. Doing so multiplies the possible negative consequences. In this case multiple lives have been negatively affected.

Carrying a rifle slung over the shoulder can be an effective "show" of force that doesn't carry the immediacy that pointing or aiming the same gun at someone would. IF the driver was generally acting without malice behind the wheel, but found himself surrounded by seemingly agitated persons and then one of them approaches with a gun pointed at him, I'd consider his response in shooting the rifle-wielder reasonable. Again, though, hopefully the investigation will fill in some of the blanks.

[flowrie]

One other note....
“
KVUE's colleagues at Good Morning America interviewed Sheila Foster on Sunday morning. She said her son, Foster, was the man killed in the shooting. She said he and his fiancée have been participating in the protests for quite some time and were downtown Saturday night. ”

So, did he have a job? Guess not.
Who was supporting him?

Maybe getting $600/ week govt unemployment?

Just curious.

[Jose_in_Dallas]

This highlights one of the biggest things I hate about people open carrying rifles (and to a lesser extent, pistols); intent. Because you never know what the person (or idiot) carry a rifle (or pistol) may be intending to do.

The below story caught my eye last month as it is a small town that I frequently stop at for groceries on my way to a couple of my favorite camping spots in Colorado.

https://www.9news.com/article/news/crim ... aed36db686

Although not an open carry issue that I am speaking about above. It does highlight the fact that there are some mentally unstable people (on both sides of the protest whether participating or simply passing by) mixed in with these crowds and being in the wrong place at the wrong time can cost someone their lives (fortunately it didn't cost the driver I believe but his life is forever changed). Fortunately video coverage was captured showing the driver inching his way through the crowd and trying to get by, and the shooter attempting to murder him. It also shows contradictory evidence that the driver was attempting to hit people in the crowd.

It will be interesting to see what comes up in the coming days with this recent shooting in Austin. I would have to think there is more video evidence out there from a crowded Austin street, either from other protesters or from businesses that have cameras. I'm thinking that protesters are not willing to share video as it doesn't support their narrative of what happened.

[chasfm11]

It will be interesting to see what comes up in the coming days with this recent shooting in Austin. I would have to think there is more video evidence out there from a crowded Austin street, either from other protesters or from businesses that have cameras. I'm thinking that protesters are not willing to share video as it doesn't support their narrative of what happened.

I'd bet that the Austin PD is no more anxious to find a video that doesn't support the protestors' narrative.

[Paladin]

So, Antifa terrorist was shot dead after he attempted to murder an armed Texan. More accurate storyline?

[Paladin]

This is an interesting case for us to study. Latest reports are two LTCs (yes, the media did use the term CHL) involved. The driver turned to drive into a street blocked by the protest. No mention from the police yet if the street was closed for the protest or not, which may make a difference. Some people are saying the driver tried to run down the protesters, so others surrounded the car and started banging on it. While I am tempted to want to run down protesters just for blocking the street, I am pretty sure it isn't legal. This again may make a difference to the legal case. As the people started banging on the car, the deceased came over and is reported to have pointed the rifle at the driver. We do not know his intent, but it is reasonable that, based on national media reporting the driver honestly believed he was going to be shot or attacked (crowd banging on the car combined with man coming over with a rifle and pointing it at him). Driver fires a string of shots at the armed man, causing a lot of the crowd to scatter. Driver speeds off and as he does so, another LTC in the crowd shoots at his car to try to stop him). Driver gets to a safe spot and calls the police to report the shooting. Driver cooperates with APD in investigation and is released pending further investigation. Second LTC also is identified and picked up for questioning by APD. He also cooperates and, I believe, is released by APD pending further investigation.

My call is that the driver will not be charged unless there is evidence he was deliberately trying to run down protesters. If he was driving on a closed off street or trying to run down the protesters, he will be charged with murder. If no evidence of that, he is freed based on self-defense. Second shooter will probably be set free based on defense of others (stopping person fleeing after an assault). But the second shooter may be charged with agg. assault or deadly conduct anyway. His defense is the weakest in the bunch, IMO. I think most people on this board have already state that the best thing to do if you are not directly threatened by a crime is to simply be the best witness possible. His actions confirm that as a good idea to me.

I have said before that people should never confuse issues by bringing in extraneous issues. The deceased was absolutely within his rights by carrying a rifle at the protest. What good did it to, though? His carrying now leaves his disabled girlfriend on her own. He might have thought he was helping people, either other protesters or the driver, but it did no good at all. The second LTC was also within his rights to carry at the protest. He thought he saw a crime and tried to stop the person from leaving. Now he stand a good chance of facing criminal charges and a trial. Even if he wins, he is going through a stressful and possibly expensive process.

From Foster's interview before the shooting, he indicated that the protesters/rioters were not allowed to march in the street. My impression is that this was another round of ANTIFA terrorism that once again got ANTIFA/BLM members killed. What is so hard about staying out of the street??? Why do they feel they have to endanger everyone by blocking the streets and highways? Terrorism isn't cool.

[Beiruty]

This is an interesting case for us to study. Latest reports are two LTCs (yes, the media did use the term CHL) involved. The driver turned to drive into a street blocked by the protest. No mention from the police yet if the street was closed for the protest or not, which may make a difference. Some people are saying the driver tried to run down the protesters, so others surrounded the car and started banging on it. While I am tempted to want to run down protesters just for blocking the street, I am pretty sure it isn't legal. This again may make a difference to the legal case. As the people started banging on the car, the deceased came over and is reported to have pointed the rifle at the driver. We do not know his intent, but it is reasonable that, based on national media reporting the driver honestly believed he was going to be shot or attacked (crowd banging on the car combined with man coming over with a rifle and pointing it at him). Driver fires a string of shots at the armed man, causing a lot of the crowd to scatter. Driver speeds off and as he does so, another LTC in the crowd shoots at his car to try to stop him). Driver gets to a safe spot and calls the police to report the shooting. Driver cooperates with APD in investigation and is released pending further investigation. Second LTC also is identified and picked up for questioning by APD. He also cooperates and, I believe, is released by APD pending further investigation.

My call is that the driver will not be charged unless there is evidence he was deliberately trying to run down protesters. If he was driving on a closed off street or trying to run down the protesters, he will be charged with murder. If no evidence of that, he is freed based on self-defense. Second shooter will probably be set free based on defense of others (stopping person fleeing after an assault). But the second shooter may be charged with agg. assault or deadly conduct anyway. His defense is the weakest in the bunch, IMO. I think most people on this board have already state that the best thing to do if you are not directly threatened by a crime is to simply be the best witness possible. His actions confirm that as a good idea to me.

I have said before that people should never confuse issues by bringing in extraneous issues. The deceased was absolutely within his rights by carrying a rifle at the protest. What good did it to, though? His carrying now leaves his disabled girlfriend on her own. He might have thought he was helping people, either other protesters or the driver, but it did no good at all. The second LTC was also within his rights to carry at the protest. He thought he saw a crime and tried to stop the person from leaving. Now he stand a good chance of facing criminal charges and a trial. Even if he wins, he is going through a stressful and possibly expensive process.

Excellent analysis. I believe the second shooter would face no charges if no one was hurt by his shooting.
More facts that I can see relevant
1) The Road was not blocked for the march. In the videos, cars were at the intersection crossing and moving. The dash cam video shows that traffic was moving.
2) Was a legal march on that street, if so why APD did not block the roads and re-routed the traffic?
3) The car came to a full stop, and no one was hurt by the car, meaning the driver did not try to run over anyone.
4) The driver honked many times to warn the protestors.
5) The car get mobbed
6) There was an armed person in the crowd with AK pointing his rifle at, or at low ready toward the shooter

5) and 6) can be a defense for the shooter under Texas Penal code.

[Redneck_Buddha]

Forgot where I saw the new enlarged photo of the open carrier, but he has the stock raised to his shoulder with the rifle squarely pointed at the driver's side. No matter how the media is spinning things, they are going to have a hard time gaslighting this one.

[PUCKER]

Forgot where I saw the new enlarged photo of the open carrier, but he has the stock raised to his shoulder with the rifle squarely pointed at the driver's side. No matter how the media is spinning things, they are going to have a hard time gaslighting this one.

I believe this is the photo (or one of them)....

[Redneck_Buddha]

Forgot where I saw the new enlarged photo of the open carrier, but he has the stock raised to his shoulder with the rifle squarely pointed at the driver's side. No matter how the media is spinning things, they are going to have a hard time gaslighting this one.

I believe this is the photo (or one of them)....

idiot.jpg

That's definitely one of them, along with the rioters who were not mobbing the car according to witnesses.

[Mike S]

Forgot where I saw the new enlarged photo of the open carrier, but he has the stock raised to his shoulder with the rifle squarely pointed at the driver's side. No matter how the media is spinning things, they are going to have a hard time gaslighting this one.

I believe this is the photo (or one of them)....

idiot.jpg

In this photo Foster clearly has the buttstock in his shoulder & at the low ready, however the muzzle appears to be pointed at the ground.

However, I'd add:

1. This snapshot is merely a still image of a single moment in time; he may have raised the muzzle the second after this photo was taken, or he may not have.

2. I can attest that it takes only a fraction of a second to go from low ready to engaging a target, especially at that close range.

3. And most importantly, I think any reasonable person in the same circumstances (or, who was surrounded by a mob beating on their car, and saw a young man approaching their stopped car with a rifle at the low ready) would reasonably believe they were in immediate jeopardy of death or serious bodily injury.