One person dead in shooting at protest in Downtown Austin

In the primary video, you can clearly hear a male voice yelling, "EVERYBODY GET BACK!!!!" I assume (guessing) that was either Foster or the driver, and shots were fired immediately after that.

If Foster yelled then either 1) he saw that the driver was armed and was trying to protect the other protesters (which is the protesters' side of the story), or 2) he was about to start shooting at the driver whether the driver had his gun up or not.

If the driver yelled then he saw Foster approaching his car as a deadly threat, had decided to unload his weapon at Foster (only), and was trying to prevent shooting any unarmed protesters.

 

What case is that?

 

Which guy?

 

I know you're trying to be objective but the rumors and your "yelling" scenario's make zero sense.

On the rumor's. If somehow the driver saw the videos and pulled into a crowd miraculously finding his exact victim in that size crowd seems impossible. Then the guy he was looking for just happened to ditch his wheel chair wife to confront seems even less possible. You couldn't possible plan that out much less achieve the results.

On the yell "get back", it doesn't matter who yelled it. If AK boy yelled it yet still had his gun in a quick shoot position right at the driver, then the driver of course would fear his life and be justified to shoot. If the driver yelled "get back" and AK boy didn't move and had his gun the shooting position, the driver would have feared his life and was justified.

Regardless of any circumstance, AK boy is the one who was breaking the law and acting in a threatening manner period. It doesn't matter what the driver was doing, he was driving on a public road his right. he didn't plow over protestors, he literally stopped to not drive over protestors and was approached in a threatening manner by AK boy, which anyone would fear their life and no doubt I would have shot first as well, I'm not waiting on some AK boy to take the first shot when threatening me with an AK. I would know I was outgunned and if it's me or him it's going to be him.

 

Terrorizing the public into compliance is exactly what is happening.

Have you not seen the "purity tests" being used to get people fired? It's insanity. Merely question the politics or methods use by BLM and scared officials in government and business terminate employees summarily. Here in Vermont in the past two months we've seen two school boards fire Principals for any critique of BLM. Here to we've fired the head of court security for a reported comment about BLM activity within the courthouse. It's an allegation made by a disgruntled employee, and no other witness.

Churches are putting up BLM banners out of fear, so are businesses.

Silence is violence is a demand for public affirmation by oath OR else!

Cheers

 

So when a supporter of equality for black people carries a gun, they are a threat. But when an opponent of wearing masks to stop the spread of COVID carries one into the state capital, he's not a threat? Sorry, that makes no sense. Carrying a gun openly during a protest is either a threat or it isn't. It can't be circumstantial because if one didn't want to project power, they wouldn't carry the weapon in the first place. Sorry, the driver, if a responsible gun owner, should not have felt threatened by a fellow gun owner. He should have welcomed him to his window to discuss ammo and the left's inability to use the right semantics when talking about guns and whatnot.

 

Maybe he tried to do that but he couldn't speak over the guy with the AK-47 yelling and threatening him. In addition, an AK-47 is tremendously more threating to see someone holding than a hand gun.

 

That's a nice fantasy to support your beliefs. Are you sure the anti-mask protesters never yelled while armed...? Are you sure they never threatened anyone? I mean by your standard, maybe they did..

Really? I'm told assault rifles are as threatening as Teddy bears and I shouldn't try to restrict anyone from carrying one loaded where ever they want.

 

There are a great deal of Rioters out there than the couple of Protests by Anti-Maskers. Rioting has gone on for almost 2 months, Anti-Maskers had about a half dozen events. Also, the big clincher is the Anti-Maskers are not destroying property nor attacking people like the rioters have done. Massive difference. Night and day.

 

If it's such a horrible place to be, what was anyone doing taking a drive around in it? I mean, if protesting mom's have to "face the consequences" of their choice, then why doesn't the shooter? You can't claim self-defense if you put yourself in harm's way, can you?

That's because the anti-maskers aren't actually facing any oppression and thus have nothing to actually protest. If your ancestors were enslaved, then denied basic liberties and freedoms, then denied basic economic opportunities, then shot at a much higher rate by the police, would you feel like burning something down? You bet you would. Being asked to wear a mask isn't the same. So it makes someone protesting wearing a mask ARMED even more threatening, actually. What those anti-maskers were actually protesting was lawful government. That should scare you way more than people protesting racism. If it doesn't, well then I've got a spoiler for you...

 

I am aware of the Cultural Marxism seeping into government and corporate environments. In fact, I started a thread about the Harper's Letter and I am participating in the White Fragility thread.

Still, I separate many of these "kids" (anyone under 40 is young enough to be my "kid") who are protesting, thinking that they are simply "supporting equality for black people", or the extreme "abolishing the police" as the ideal solution to police brutality, as being ignorant of the larger picture of what is going on outside their little daily "cause". Some of them don't even have a political cause, but say that attending the protests is just "fun" for socializing with peers.

Obviously, Foster was more of an extremist, but he's being characterized as an extreme Libertarian, not an extreme Marxist ideologue. There is a "sympathy" between an anarchist Libertarian who wants "zero" government and anarchic Marxist who wants to destroy the current system of government. The difference would come later when the Marxist would want an all-powerful Communist-style regime government with no capitalism to control every single area of life, while the extreme fringe Libertarian would continue to want "zero" structural government and 100% capitalist private market economy, where individuals are free of coercion from government or coercion from anyone else.

There's a lot of nuance and overlap in politics today, which is why I try to avoid stereotyping and person as being in "this bucket" or "that bucket". Politics makes strange bedfellows where natural enemies temporarily team up to become allies over one particular issue, then become ideological enemies again later.

 

You are sure making alot of assumptions, so I will make some for you. There are many one way streets in Austin, so we don't know if the driver was stuck on a one way street. Also, how do you know if he didn't made the wrong turn and got confused.

And, my argument is not regarding BLM rights to protest which I am also for, but my argument is against the rioters and those who have taken extreme aggressions on other people and property.

 

I'm a 2nd Amendment supporter, but one who always appreciates a finely tuned sarcastic sense of humor. That was funny.

Ironically, had those two met under any other circumstances, they probably would have had the exact and very amicable conversation which you described.

Keep Austin Weird.

 

Foster and his fiance's photos have made local news stories about the protests. He was certainly known in local social media as well. How hard is it to find a largish armed white man pushing a quadriplegic black woman in a relatively small crowd of protesters? They [the witness protesters] say that when the driver stopped, Foster moved in between his fiance and the driver to protect her. They also say that that lane was relatively clear for car traffic and no one started to surround the car until he put on the brakes and started honking. They say he could have just kept moving on his way. And yes, I know I know, the protesters will say anything they can to make themselves and Foster "the innocents"...I am aware of that (so don't lecture me. LOL)

There are a lot of "crazy conspiracy theories" floating around on the left's BLM supporters, but what they are saying is not 100% outside the realm of possibility that this was a premeditated hit on Foster.

Meanwhile, I don't see people who are defending the driver as 100% innocent are going with facts either, but with partisanship.

I repeat. I don't see this as a partisan incident as much as a hopefully unfortunate incident which involved quite a bit of "wrong place at the wrong time" on both sides.

Still keeping an open mind....waiting for facts.

 

I have no idea how anti-mask came into this conversation. My feeling is that it isn't relevant. Are all protests of any kind relevant now? Anyone is a threat when they walk up to a car in a threatening manner and especially when they have a gun. As far as I know, the guy in the car did not break any laws where the other guy did.

Why isn't anyone talking about the guy who fired on a man driving away? That is a big no no and he could have easily hurt an innocent person. Three shots that went somewhere unknown and no one seems to have a problem with it.

 

The above would ultimately mean the protestors are admitting to engaging in threatening, even menacing behavior, solely because they were annoyed with the presence of someone who had a differing opinion the matter. Rather than simply ignoring said individual and letting him pass through peacefully, they went out of their way to surround his motor vehicle, and making his leaving the area a physical impossibility, giving him no choice in the matter.

 

Interesting idea except I'm not sure why he would have turned himself in if it was a premeditated hit. And why would he do that in a crowd of witnesses? Wouldn't it be easier to kill him later on, in private?

 

That would be the county DA's prosecution case, if they don't dismiss this as self defense. The driver was sitting through the green light, waited several seconds before turning right on red onto the street where the protesters were gathered. He could have gone straight through the light and avoided them altogether.

In Texas, he probably will get of on self-defense, in spite of his stupid decision to turn onto Congress Ave...because he had a legal right to be on that street and they did not have a legal right to be marching in the street. That legal fact will make it difficult to prove that he was the provocateur in the shooting, even if they try.

As posted in #603 on this thread:





....and on the second note about "having nothing to protest". That doesn't matter in America. If I want to gather a group of people who want to replace all natural grass yards with AstroTurf, hold up signs and yell at the state capitol building, I can. What I can't do is graffiti the building, burn it down, or go start ripping out peoples' grass yards because "I disapprove".

 

That isn't what they are saying, but I may not have written very clearly on that. They, or "some", are saying that when the road was completely clear for him to keep driving, he did not keep driving. That is when they decided he was a threat, and moved in around the car, supposedly to get photos of his license plate.

Like Police Chief Manley said, not all of the witnesses who called the police had the same story, so not every account corroborates others. I've been reading Tweets by local activists since this happened and there are a lot of conflicting conspiracies, but of course, they all side with defending Foster.

Sorry...I should be writing "some witnesses" instead of "they" as a collective since there are different witness versions. The situation is confused right now, until we get more hard facts.

 

Sorry, I can't call those people witnesses with any credibility since they will probably all lie to paint a picture in their favor due to their emotional state and agenda.

 

Texas gun laws provide a lot of cover under very favorable self-defense laws. This public scenario is more defensible than if the driver hunted the guy down at home, or alone somewhere, and shot him outside of a protest.

I really doubt the driver planned this, as is the "plot" some of the BLM sympathizers are stirring up in their imaginations. It isn't 100% outside the realm of possibility though. Foster's words about "haters and pu$$ies aren't going to do anything" could certainly be taken as an invitation to a lone wolf vigilante who sees all BLM protesters as "terrorists".

...and calling the police to tell them you shot someone makes the "self defense" story credible versus a drive-by shooting which would make the driver a criminal.

 

So now the mere present of an individual who holds differing ideas, and them honking their horn, constitutes a threat. Such is hardly surprising when one considers they are promoting the message "silence is violence".

 

I really don't care if they were enemies, the way AK boy approached the vehicle in ready shoot position puts the law on the drivers side.

 

@LoneStarGal?

 

Sorry...got caught up in other replies (and threads).

I looked at all 3 public videos and see that two are not on the right side of the street for that still shot. The dashcam video might have caught it, but they were so far away that it would take some tremendously high-tech equipment to zoom in to a close up. So I think you are correct that there is no "public" video.

Still, that photo is too grainy to be a close-up from a camera. Looks like it has to be a freeze frame from a video we haven't seen....taken from the other side of the street on the passenger side of the car.