One person dead in shooting at protest in Downtown Austin

it is no longer a protest when they block freedom of movement for taxpayers going to work

he was recorded making a call to action in a lawless riot while armed

 

Is this a call to action? Foster talked about not being afraid of being killed by pu$$ies. Perry talked about how to kill people.





https://www.ibtimes.sg/garrett-fost...-vigil-tweeted-about-killing-protesters-49321

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/black-lives-matter-president-riot

Maybe they could pay reparations to the business owner's whose property they pissed on, and left their BLM signature, and since a beating is worse than spilling coffee four million per person attacked by them, and get their supporters at the DNC and "Old Navy..." to pay too; the Party of Treason should do it before the election, so as to win hearts and minds.

 

And yet only the deceased actually went out of his way to engage in violence against others without justification, while Daniel Perry only engaged in words.

 

They're both extremists. Extremists are not exactly a good thing if one wishes to have a civil society.

 

Knowing how to kill people is nothing, everyone that ever went to a shooting range knows the common target doesn't have legs.

Foster said ******* "won’t do anything," about his terrorism and violations of civil and human rights.

Defending ourselves from traitors is a human right. Going where we please in public is a human right.

Get out of the street, don't attack cars, don't stand in their way and point your assault weapon directly at them, don't try to or break their windows to carjack or kill them, and don't be a traitor...

Superbadbrother [sic] on here did tell us time for words is over.

 

Show me something more than having read American Rifleman, and stating facts presented therein, such as the article about why the .40 Cal pistol was selected by a police department and all about gel firing, and articles about standing sideways in a duel to increase chance of a miss...or something somewhere else about not having the human right of movement...

 

guy sounds like a total nutjob.

 

Interesting observation, and my basic experience as well, mixing with the melange here in Vermont. However, I feel you are lending them imprimatur by defining them with labels and ideologies they cannot articulate. In the mix are a few hardcore ideologues, exemplars of every ism left of democratic socialism to be sure. That's 5-10% of the crowd. The vast majority are there because, yeah, slavery or something, cops bad and I'm bored, oh yeah and "Free the Depressed!", got any weed?

This is a street party. Something to do because everything else is Covid closed.

Karl Marx called this groovy gaggle the lumpenproletariat. He probably would just dismiss them. Lenin would have them killed. Mao would have used them. Pol Pot would put them in charge.

I like this Soviet period description: "shiftlessness, lack of discipline, hatred of the old, but impotence to construct anything new, an individualistic declassed 'personality' whose actions are based only on foolish caprices."

Engels:
The lumpenproletariat is passive decaying matter of the lowest layers of the old society, is here and there thrust into the [progressive] movement by a proletarian revolution; [however,] in accordance with its whole way of life, it is more likely to sell out to reactionary intrigues.

A street party!

 

Irresponsible? Not in their view. This bunch is just pushing the cause. The goal is to keep agitating. They aren't in search of some truth, or to change minds. They're into the material mechanics of revolution.

If this man gets attacked, it's a plus. If it's the wrong guy, it's a plus. One of their comrades get killed, it's a plus. It's measured in the mechanics, action that agitates not on the outcome. They aren't emotionally invested in the outcome, yet. That's the next phase.

These people cannot be reasoned with, you aren't going to change their minds and they aren't attempting to change yours. They're going after power, using raw power.

 

I'd be curious to know which tweet that June 3rd was a response to. Sounds like it was probably a suggestion to "shoot them in the leg", to which virtually every police officer in the country would echo Daniel Perry's sentiment. It's not a tweet about "how to kill someone" (that's just inflammatory hyperbole), but it IS a tweet about proper tactics for life-threatening self-defense situations.

 

Every individual is extreme to one extent or another. Yet it was the deceased, and only the deceased, who knowingly chose to engage in illegal activity at the time of his death, both in knowingly occupying a public right of way reserved for motor vehicle traffic, and going out of his way to threaten a motorist with a firearm, thus giving the motorist reason to fear for his life.

 

Other than walking up to the driver's car Saturday night and allegedly pointing a rifle at the driver, violating the driver's rights to safety and security, I do not see any evidence that Foster was a violent rioter or caused any property damage.

America welcomes and encourages citizens to form assemblies to publicly redress grievances with the government, even when their voices are anarchic and speak that they hate America and everything about her. Obviously, talk is one thing and "protest" turns into criminal riots when property is stolen, damaged or destroyed. That is not "free speech".

We want dissenters to communicate their goals and speak openly about changes they desire, and then be trialed peaceably, at the ballot box. Good ideas get public support in elections and move the country left or right, preferably "gently". Bad ideas get stomped out in elections and also move the country toward liberalism or conservatism.

If these kids were in China, hankering to overthrow the communist government and install capitalist freedoms and the liberty to express themselves, they would be murdered in the streets by the Chinese military for their dissidence. They don't seem to realize that fact while marching against America in favor of their dreams of "Communist Utopia".

Peaceful civil rights' protests in the 60's were moving public opinion toward the left in the 1968 election, until MLK's assassination turned the protests into violent riots. The violence and the rioting moved public opinion just enough to the right that "law and order" Richard Nixon won the presidency that the left fully expected him to lose a few months earlier.

That is how and why free speech for dissidents is a good thing and helps keep this country from careening off one extreme or the other. The system may malfunction this year as the public decides whether they hate the Marxist radicals on the Far Left more or less than they hate Trump's divisiveness and lack of diplomacy. Even if Biden wins, however, I expect that the rioting and skyrocketing crime will go so far off the rails, that Republicans will take back the House and Senate with sweeping majorities in 2022. America has an "Auto-Correct" button called "Let people express what they want publicly", and then reap the rewards or the consequences.

 

While simultaneously playing host to incomprehensible levels of corruption at all levels of government, for the express purpose of rigging elections against the people, to the point where voting has been rendered moot and nothing but an illusion.

 

These may or may not be Mr Perry's posts. They may be wholly created, or changed. They are taken without context.
That said, even if these are Mr Perry's written thoughts they aren't as damning as the article implies.
If Mr. Perry was working for Uber or Lyft that night, then his customers and itinerary is known. If the service sent him to the area then the idea that he was hunting becomes hard to prove. If the car ride service suggested the Hot Spot, and his last fare drop was contemporaneous and proximal to the incident site, his state of mind becomes meaningless. Trouble came to him, while working. Fate is the hunter, not Mr Perry.

Subject to change.

 

That is correct. But as soon as the lumpenproletariat (thanks, I learned a new word today ) starts figuring out that having "fun" and socializing during Covid lockdown is ending up with a lot of deaths and injuries, the crowds and supporters get smaller and smaller.

 

Both sides want a bit of anarchy, eh? Destroy Capitalism and replace with Marxist/Communism equality-of-poverty, or Drain the Swamp and strengthen American jobs, opportunities and capitalism. Everyone is upset with the corporate elite class of Congress vampires, sucking everyone's income away to line their own pockets. Globalism works for them, not for us. The dinosaur RINO's and DINO's are going away a few people at a time with every election cycle. Government change in representation doesn't change overnight.

 

I believe the Tweets are authentic. IBTimes is not know to be as "fake news" as others.

The rest is a valid argument, though personally, I still would have not turned down Congress. I expect there is a way to contact whoever dispatches drivers to tell them if you need an alternative point one block over to sit and wait until they contact you for the next ride request that comes in. I don't know exactly how that works though, or what an Uber "hot spot" means.

 

~ Seems that two of a kind meet by chance - always a disaster .

 

At this point, I still side with Perry.

https://www.kxan.com/austin-george-...s-identity-claims-self-defense-attorney-says/

 

This whole situation shows us the dangers of open carry while protesting and the benefits of concealed carry. It seems that both have made statements that aren't flattering on video or social media, but only one of them broke the law before shots were fired. That will likely protect Daniel Perry.

What about the other shooter? He fired his gun in public in the midst of a crowd without knowing the entire situation. I'm not going to convict him on the internet, but it does deserve some scrutiny.

 

~ Yes open carry should not be allowed in public protest. Not sure what happened exactly but one thing seems clear - Garrett Foster was the only one waving a rifle around and then he approached a vehicle surrounded by an angry crowd. Not smart ...

 

What a horribly biased piece of "journalism". I had to quit reading.
"Investigation Exposes US Army Sergeant as Murderer of Garrett Foster"
I didn't know anyone has been convicted, or even accused, of murder.
" the driver who barreled into the protest in Downtown Austin and the one who shot and murdered Garrett Foster."
He didn't really "barrel" into anywhere. Again with the "murdered" term.

So if this guy gets killed by one of the crazy left loonies, will Dmitri Sans be held accountable for publishing his name? It probably is the guy but if it's not, he just ruined some innocent guy's life and put him in extreme danger.

I don't like this kind of journalism and I think they should be held accountable when it goes bad.

 

I don't know about outlawing open carry during legal protest. Rights are rights. The presence of a gun is a huge responsibility and shouldn't be taken lightly, especially if you don't know the law or are willing to break the law.

I've gotten into arguments and walked away with the other guy thinking I'm a coward, but I can't afford to have a fist fight when I'm carrying a gun. We both made it home alive and I doubt either of us would even recognize each other now.

I'm sure this comes into play: From Texas Penal Code 9.32
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;  or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;  and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.