Herman: Austin Shooting May Have Involved Two Law-Abiding People With the Legal Right to Attempt to Kill Each Other

Sgt. Daniel Perry 1200

Army Sgt. Daniel Perry (courtesy Broden & Mikelson)

“We simply ask that anybody who might want to criticize Sgt. Perry’s actions, picture themselves trapped in a car as a masked stranger raises an assault rifle in their direction and reflect upon what they might have done if faced with the split-second decision faced by Sgt. Perry that evening.”

The most important part of the statement [by Sgt. Daniel Perry’s defense attorney] is one we all often have a problem heeding in such situations: “We urge the public to allow the police to conduct a full investigation.”

It’s a request that’s both difficult and important with which to comply. It’s challenging to avoid speculation, such as I’m doing here. There are more facts to be discerned. And, for prosecutors, difficult decisions to be made.

But among the possibilities is that in this tragic case, under our gun and self-defense laws, we had two law-abiding citizens, availing themselves of their rights, who had the legal right to attempt to kill each other.

One succeeded. And might both still be alive if one or the other hadn’t chosen to exercise his right to carry a firearm that night?

If Perry faces no charges, one side is going to be left very angry. It’ll be the side motivated to the July 25 protest by deeply held beliefs that our laws are not equitably enforced.

And that could lead to a new reason to protest the actions, or in this case inactions, of law enforcement.

It’s a fit topic for debate and protest. But next time, at the next protest, how about if everybody voluntarily forfeits their right to bear arms and leaves the guns at home and everybody just shouts at each other?

– Ken Herman in Two men, two guns, one death

comments

  1. avatar Leigh says:

    Presumed INNOCENT…until proven guilty…in a court of law…NOT in the court of public opinion…
    but the metoo movement has changed all of that, too…just sayin’

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      #METOO was last year’s flavor of the month, just as #TRANS was the year before that, and #RESIST was before that, etc.

      Hopefully when the election results are tallied, 2021 will be the year of #GUNRIGHTS due to all the rioting and increasing scramble from new POTG to defend themselves. Discovering that neglected right and dusting it off anew.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Hopefully when the election results are tallied, 2021 will be the year of #GUNRIGHTS due to all the rioting and increasing scramble from new POTG to defend themselves. Discovering that neglected right and dusting it off anew.”

        We are truly a nation of monarchists. We look at the presidential elections as defining moments, as if a president can actually change much of anything. It is the House and Senate (and the courts) where real power lies. These “down ballot” races almost always get short shrift.

        If one party holds a super majority in both houses, a president can be rendered almost irrelevant. Otherwise, every president is essentially a lame duck until the president’s party gains meaningful control of the legislature. And when it comes to the courts, the legislature is the most important consideration; Congress determines the shape of the federal courts.

        The legislatures also control the constitution (whether we like it or not). Every element of that document can be altered via amendment. Yes, even unalienable rights can be eliminated via amendment (“A republic, if you can keep it.”). While it is possible to refuse to surrender your firearms, if the Second Amendment is repealed, (or heavily modified), using those firearms for anything other than armed insurrection may turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory. Who can stand the drain of being charged with both state and federal crimes, simultaneously.

        Put as much energy into the local political races as you put into the presidential race. Power rests with the people, not the president.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          In my view, the Congress cannot repeal the right, only the guarantee against governmental interference.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “In my view, the Congress cannot repeal the right, only the guarantee against governmental interference.”

          In the most esoteric, adademic and philosophical sense, you would be correct. You would also be correct in that Congress cannot amend the constitution. However….

          It is the states themselves who can amend any sentence in the constituiton. That is why the “down ballot” elections are more important than the presidential election.

          When it comes to mere Congressional legislation, once a veto-proof majority is established, the president is ham-strung. That veto-proof majority consists entirely of legislators elected at the state level. There are no national elections for members of Congress. A veto-proof majority in Congress can warp the judiciary into any shape or tilt it likes. Literally, presidents come and go, Congress is forever.

          At this moment, the only assistance to the president lies in appointing federal judges. Beyond that, there is little stomach for standing firm against opponents of the president, from either party, from the legislators elected in the states.

          It may be possible that the chaos in the nation will benefit Republicrats, providing a majority in the House, and maintaining a majority in the Senate (both are really big “maybe” scenarios). However, holding a majority in the House (even a one vote majority) is hugely more difficult.

          One thing I noted throughout my adult life is that “conservatives” and/or Republicrats are essentially “one and done” thinkers: find a problem, fix it, move on to something else. The Dimwitocrats never concede. Everything is up for grabs, all the time. All of which is why “down ballot” races determine who holds national power. In this election, even the “down ballot” races will be on the mandated mail-in voting. Do not be decieved…if the universal mail-in ballot survives, it will be the norm for all elections evermore. Once mail-in voting becomes established, what is the argument preventing the move to voting electyronically from home?

          Make no mistake, the Leftist (communist/marxist) movement is determined to eliminate elections of any consequence. My thinking is they intend to merely count voter registrations at each “election”, and declare as winner whichever party has the most registered voters.

        3. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

          “We look at the presidential elections as defining moments, as if a president can actually change much of anything.”

          Really?

          So the ideological balance of the SCOTUS is inconsequential?

  2. avatar No one of consequence says:

    But next time, at the next protest, how about if everybody voluntarily forfeits their right to bear arms and leaves the guns at home …

    No.

    If I’m in a protest it’s because I made a wrong turn, and that aside, based on what I’ve seen over the past few months, I have zero confidence that “peaceful protesters” would let me depart peacefully.

    1. avatar BLAMMO!! says:

      You can place your faith in the forbearance and good nature of protestors peaceably assembling to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

      Heh, sometimes I just kill me.

      1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

        If you don’t I’m sure they’ll peacefully help 😂

      2. avatar No one of consequence says:

        Yeah, I could.

        Then again, I recognize the difference between “I can trust you” and “I should trust you.”

      3. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

        “Heh, sometimes I just kill me.”

        A quote by Simon Travaglia, the ‘Bastard Operator From Hell’ (BOFH).

        Read about his exploits here :http://bofh.bjash.com/

        20 years back, I knew someone who worked with him. When I mentioned it must have been cool to know him, he replied : “Not really. In person, he’s quite the c*nt.”…

        1. avatar rosignol says:

          …so he’s a warm person, with surprising depths?

          😉

        2. avatar Alex in Oregon says:

          Used to read him all the time. Can’t tell you how many times I wondered if he was really getting away with all he wrote about.

        3. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          I’ve read four since the link was posted and it is clearly bullshit. In the immortal words of Dave Chapelle “That brother is clearly lying!” I’m sure for people in similar positions, or even in the positions of his supposed victims it was pretty funny. But to me it just sounded like someone who needed the crap beat out them behind a dumpster out back.

      4. avatar RGP says:

        If attending a peaceful protest, remember to bring a bag of marshmallows and a really long coat hanger.

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      This wasn’t two guys arguing. It was a mob against one in a car. Not a fair situation and one that self defense calls out.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        If he didn’t want to deal with a group of pedestrians he should not have turned right against the signal and breached the crosswalk while pedestrians were present with the right of way.

        And he especially should not have done it in an aggressive manner, whipping to the right without a full stop, much less obeying the crosswalk while pedestrians were present, and honking his horn is not really a non-confrontational traffic move.

        When a driver intentionally runs over a traffic safety cone, you can figure he’s looking for a confrontation.

        Now we’re just waiting to see what flavor of homicide he is being charged under, many people are saying voluntary manslaughter.

        1. avatar J. Smith says:

          Miner bs whiner, shut up. Just shut up. Youre a troll and you do nothing but stir shit. You twist, you lie, just shut up and fall down your mine.

          Protestors are criminals when they block roadways.

          These s’bags are holding people against their will, not allowing them to peaceably go on their way freely and unmolested, those are all crimes.

          The nutsack with the AK had it on his person to intimidate people, that is a crime. His motives were clear because its on video him saying it and testing people to engage with him.

          I think you should go to the next protest and do the same mr nutsack with the AK, see how that works out for you, then you can tell us all about.

        2. avatar jwtaylor says:

          As usual, a complete and utter lie from you. If he had done as you said he would have hit someone with his car. I fact, he did not, and clearly stopped as soon as he came to the pedestrians.
          You are completely unable to see, much less speak, the truth. Your constant lies are obvious, and only getting moreso.

        3. avatar Southern Cross says:

          By owning and driving a car he was flaunting his wealth and white Male privilege.

          Is that enough newspeak for you?

        4. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

          “When I driver intentionally runs over a safety cone …he’s looking for a confrontation “

          First off how does the mob determine his intent by beating it out of him ? Secondly is he looking for a confrontation with the safety cone ?

          This is just stupid. NO you can’t justify deadly force by somebody driving slightly recklessly or run a red light!

          Also once Perry stopped his vehicle it was obvious he was no longer an imminent threat IF he ever was one , which he likely was not.

          So who was foster “protecting “ from Perry ? Who was in imminent danger of being hit by a driver who had stopped his vehicle and given no reasonable threat to run anybody over? Nobody that’s who.

          Perry in the other hand was surrounded by a mob that was acting in a threatening manner beating on his windows and saying who knows what to him . He was outnumbered and an armed man with rifle at the low ready approached and appeared to him to raise the rifle to fire.

          He did the right thing and fired.

        5. avatar Joseph says:

          Go fuck yourself miner. But of course I mean that in a nice way.

        6. avatar Miner49er says:

          “I fact, he did not, and clearly stopped as soon as he came to the pedestrians.“

          He should’ve stopped before he entered the crosswalk. In fact, he should’ve stopped at the red light because the crosswalk was filled with pedestrians who had the right of way.

          But instead, he chose to make an aggressive right on red against the signal and breached the crosswalk. As prosecutors across the country will tell you, the automobile is a lethal weapon and if the motor is running it is capable of instant death, requiring but a couple pounds of pressure on the accelerator to move to tons forward with thousands of foot-pounds of ‘muzzle energy‘.

          And honking his horn was indeed an aggressive move, effectively demanding the pedestrians (who had the right of way) flee from his path.

          Yes, he did eventually stop. But it was long after he had violated the traffic signal and breached the crosswalk, placing pedestrians at risk.

          You might find the Texas statute regarding crosswalks and pedestrian right of way worthy of a casual perusal. I posted it on one of these threads a few days ago but it’s readily accessible through an Internet search engine.

        7. avatar drunkEODguy says:

          I hope your ass is absolutely chapped when he’s acquitted. The weak sauce you spout will be whats spouted in court, because it’s literally all there is against him. Once its characterized that he was working for ride share and his time was literally money and he wanted to get to his next pick-up quickly that characterization will be tossed out. Add in a jury that sees the same pictures and video we’ve all seen with the “reasonable person” standard being the bar for using violence and no juror save some activist holdout will think that a mob beating your car and a gunman at your door is not a reasonable standard to fear death/harm. If he was looking for a confrontation to kill someone its way easier to just plow through a crowd once they mob your car than to selectively shoot one guy and then drive away. Christ alive the absolute state of your cuckoldry.

      2. avatar Miner49er says:

        I’m surprised you folks don’t understand it traffic signals are instruments of the law.

        And you don’t seem to understand that pedestrians have the right of way on crosswalks, even if it is unmarked.

        But as they say, the proof is in the pudding. We will let the courts decide, as the constitution decrees.

        1. avatar drunkEODguy says:

          your right, traffic law is tottaly enforceable by armed angry mob in the Texas code. I checked. Thank God you were here to tell us all.

    3. avatar Ing says:

      Again, no.

      We can shout at each other all day if you like. I’ll refuse to forego my First and Second Amendment rights (let alone forfeit; that was a terrible word choice), and you’re welcome to do the same. And as long as nobody escalates beyond shouting, nobody gets hurt.

      The rights aren’t the problem here. Bad behavior is.

  3. avatar C.S. says:

    But no mention of the 3rd ccw holder shooting at the car as it was driving away…

    1. avatar Ryno says:

      There was no “3rd CCW.” Kid with the AK was OC.

      1. avatar C.S. says:

        I stand corrected. My bad.

      2. avatar gus says:

        yes, there was. he fired three shots. supposedly it was a “street medic” with the protesters. at first witnesses said he fired at the car, then when it was discovered who the “medic” was he said he fired three shots in the air to warn people away from the car.. and then video shows that he shot at the car.

    2. avatar No one of consequence says:

      Well, a concealed carrier in the crowd. The protester who was shot, was open carrying a rifle.

      In any case, when I first saw the headline I thought it was talking about the gentleman in the car, and the CCW permit holder in the crowd who fired at the car. Silly me.

      1. avatar Bob says:

        There’re five elements of legal self-defense: you must be acting lawfully (innocence); the threat must be imminent and unavoidable; and your actions must be reasonable and proportional. The dead guy was behaving unlawfully, by blocking traffic as part of a non-permitted protest, so I think any self-defense claim is gone right there. While the dead guy may have perceived a threat when the car drove into the crowd, his reaction (to charge the driver’s door with a long gun at the low ready) seem unreasonable, and he had an opportunity to retreat.

        The driver/shooter, on the other hand, was behaving lawfully (driving on a public road, licensed to carry), was prevented from escaping, and given the recent protest-related violence it seems reasonable to perceive a threat in that situation, especially with a guy approaching the car with a long gun at the low ready.

        I too heard that there was a third party, someone in the crowd, who fired on the car as it was departing. That person too, seems in legal jeopardy, as the car was fleeing so he wasn’t in imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Can he claim that he was trying to stop a threat to others? In that case, there might be two legal shooters in the same event. Strange case, for a strange time.

        Ultimately, if you’re going to open carry, especially a long gun at the low ready, you must be careful to act in a way that doesn’t allow anyone else to perceive you as a threat. That’s just a fact. Follow the rule of the three stupids: don’t go to stupid places with stupid people and do stupid things.

        Read Andrew Branca’s book, The Law of Self Defense.

        1. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

          “I too heard that there was a third party, someone in the crowd, who fired on the car as it was departing. That person too, seems in legal jeopardy, as the car was fleeing so he wasn’t in imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.”

          According to jwtaylor, interviewed and released. Jon thinks it *might* be because he was undercover LE in the crowd, but that’s unverified…

        2. avatar Nero "...diction, not grammar..." Wolfe says:

          “…the threat must be imminent and unavoidable…”

          I’m not an attorney, so check with one in your jurisdiction, but it seems to me the imminent threat doesn’t actually have to be a real threat. Your perception of the threat must be reasonable.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          “The driver/shooter, on the other hand, was behaving lawfully (driving on a public road”

          Nope, your driver turns right against the red light, and breached the crosswalk while pedestrians had the right of way. He also ran over an orange safety cone because he was driving where driving was prohibited.

          But I understand you need to say the things you say in order to make yourself feel good about your perceptions.

          That’s sort of self reinforcement is useful in maintaining a delusion.

          In any case, the court will sort it out.

        4. avatar Bob says:

          Miner69er, I think the complete facts have yet to be established. Is a “right turn on red” allowed at that intersection? Were the protesters in the cross walk, and have the right-of-way, or were they just blocking the road? If there was a cone, did the police place it there lawfully, or the protesters? Lots we don’t know. Yes, the court will settle it.

          But why the snark? This isn’t a courtroom, so do all comments really need to include the necessary qualifiers, like “alleged” shooter? Get over yourself.

        5. avatar Ned Pepper says:

          Don’t you have a Rainbow Rally you’re supposed to be at?

        6. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Bob, you got it right. He turned right on red, legally, when there was no one in the crosswalk. The cone he hit was in fact there to protect the construction on the side of the road, not used to block the road at all.
          Miner has to lie. He has to. He can’t help it.

        7. avatar Miner49er says:

          “a “right turn on red” allowed at that intersection?”

          When making a right on red, one must yield to pedestrians.

          Sorry guys, I know it’s Texas, but it’s not death race 2000. There are no extra points for killing veterans or people in wheelchairs.

        8. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          Well, that’s no fun.

          You are a real party pooper. We are not inviting you to our protests.

        9. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Yes Miner, you do have to yield to pedestrians, which is exactly what he did. Anyone can see that he stopped as soon as pedestrians were in his way. He didn’t hit anyone. He wasn’t in danger of hitting anyone.
          I can either believe that you are that stupid or just can’t stop lying. And nobody is that stupid.

        10. avatar Miner49er says:

          “he had an opportunity to retreat.”

          Not with his partner in a wheelchair in the crosswalk, in the path of the oncoming vehicle.

          Yes, I realize many conservative snowflakes would have indeed fled, leaving their disabled loved one in the path of the vehicle. This man did not abandon his loved one.

  4. avatar Dennis says:

    Guarantee, any armed cognicent person will react the same way! Dont overthink it.

    1. avatar Hush says:

      Protesters or anyone else does not have the right of way if the approaching vehicle doesn’t yield the right of way to them.

  5. avatar Debbie W. says:

    The last thing anyone should be concerned about is the feelings of angry protesters who have proven they do not know the difference between their butt and a hole on the ground.
    Highly unlikely charges will be filed against the individual who shot the AK carrying peaceful protester.
    As for the nitwit who shot at the fleeing occupants in a car the nitwit should be charged with attempted murder, assault, etc. You cannot shoot at people fleeing in a car who by all accounts did nothing illegal especially considering the circumstances.
    These protesters feel emboldened and assume everyone is going to roll over and play dead for them. Bad Assumption.

    1. avatar Craig in IA says:

      “The last thing anyone should be concerned about is the feelings of angry protesters who have proven they do not know the difference between their butt and a hole on the ground.”

      We used to call these types a “lynch mob”. There is no way to logically deal with a lynch mob other than use more force than they have to return to law and order.

      1. avatar Kenneth Phillips says:

        I agree 100%. The only thing you can do in that situation, is assumed that they are willing to kill you. And take appropriate action. It’s very easy for armchair quarterbacks who don’t have any brains at all, to mouth off. But just get in that situation once. See what you do. Been there, done that.

        1. avatar trv says:

          Thank you.

      2. avatar Miner49er says:

        “We used to call these types a “lynch mob”.“

        I’m sure to a white man like you, it ‘feels’ like a lynch mob.

        But lynch mobs are organized for a specific purpose and target a specific individual or group of individuals. That’s a distinction that you seem to be unaware of.

        But if the victims of an actual lynch mob were here, they would explain to you the difference.

        1. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          Well these rioters are targeting decent people trying to do their job or get to their job. So that should qualify.

        2. avatar Tired of the bs says:

          Miner someone wants to explain somethings to you, would you mind coming out to the parking lot?

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          “Miner someone wants to explain somethings to you, would you mind coming out to the parking lot?”

          Thank you for your admission the facts are not on your side, the only technique left to you is to bully me through your keyboard.

          Many people are saying you are intellectually bankrupt, but I think you’re just a mean spirited person who is angry at life.

        4. avatar Tired of your bs !! says:

          M49er I’m not mad at life but I do get tired of you spouting your leftist crap after you have been repeatedly proven wrong. I thought about saying behind the wood shed but that probably brings back happy memories from when you molested barnyard animals back there.

    2. avatar bastiches says:

      They are not protesters.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        +1

  6. avatar seatex says:

    So how exactly was the protestor approaching a vehicle on a public street, with his rifle pointed at it, a law-abiding citizen with a legal right to do so?

    1. avatar rc says:

      This. Pointing a gun like that is felony assault in most states.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        A crime. So was blocking the street.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          It’s unfortunate that apparently none of you have seen the shooter’s own attorney’s statement.

          The attorney is not claiming that the weapon was ever pointed at his client, he admits that the client shot because he “thought the victim was raising his rifle“.

          I imagine the perpetrator will be seeking new legal representation in the very near future, stay tuned!

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “The attorney is not claiming that the weapon was ever pointed at his client, he admits that the client shot because he “thought the victim was raising his rifle“.”

          The attorney is laying the groundwork for the reasonable-man standard as part of asserting justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense. Statutorily, it makes zero difference whether or not the deceased was actually raising/pointing his rifle at the driver; what matters is what the driver reasonably believed the deceased was doing.

          This is not some of your better work, Miner.

        3. avatar jwtaylor says:

          The perpetrator will not be seeking legal counsel because the perpetrator is dead.

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          “Statutorily, it makes zero difference whether or not the deceased was actually raising/pointing his rifle at the driver; what matters is what the driver reasonably believed the deceased was doing.”

          Not really, it comes down to whether the jury thinks the driver could reasonably believe he was in danger of imminent death or bodily injury.

          Also, the jury will be considering if Foster had a reasonable belief that he or others were facing a threat from the automobile as a lethal weapon.

          If Foster had a reasonable belief that he or others were in danger from the vehicle as a lethal weapon, then he would be justified in whatever action he needed to take to stop the credible threat.

          Very interesting case, many people are saying that the driver will be soon be charged with voluntary manslaughter.

        5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “Not really, it comes down to whether the jury thinks the driver could reasonably believe he was in danger of imminent death or bodily injury.”

          That is, more or less, the same thing that I said.

          “Also, the jury will be considering if Foster had a reasonable belief that he or others were facing a threat from the automobile as a lethal weapon.”

          No, the jury wouldn’t be considering any such thing. He would not be on trial, and the reasonableness of his actions is irrelevant to the determination of the reasonableness of the driver’s actions.

          “If Foster had a reasonable belief that he or others were in danger from the vehicle as a lethal weapon, then he would be justified in whatever action he needed to take to stop the credible threat.”

          His actions were demonstrably unreasonable, since a) he himself was clearly in no danger from the driver, b) the car was stopped at the moment that he approached the driver, and c) of all involved parties, only the driver was somewhere he had a lawful right to be, and engaging in lawful activity.

          That said, again, the reasonableness of his actions is a matter only relevant if he himself were on trial. It bears zero on the actions of the driver, or on the reasonableness of the actions of the driver.

        6. avatar Miner49er says:

          Chippy, I must respectfully disagree.

          The reasonableness of foster’s actions are clearly an important part of the determinations.

          Let’s say you see someone mugging another person. You shout stop and begin to pull your weapon to defend the innocent person.
          The mugger shoots you dead and then claims he shot you in self-defense because you were about to point a weapon at him.

          Under your theory, the mugger was completely justified in his use of deadly force.

          Sorry, no.

          The driver had breached the crosswalk while pedestrians were present, honking his horn, doing everything but shouting ‘gangway for the white guy!‘

          Yes he stopped after illegally entering the crosswalk, but his still running vehicle was one second away from pushing 4000 pounds of steel through innocent pedestrians, clearly a credible threat to life and limb.

          As a matter of fact I believe the Austin PD is right now litigating a case where they claim a suspect in a vehicle was employing a lethal weapon.

          I think we all are eagerly awaiting the results of the investigation, I’m sure no one will be happy with the results!

        7. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “Under your theory, the mugger was completely justified in his use of deadly force.

          Sorry, no.”

          This is an absurd analogy to begin with, but I’ll play along.

          In order for the mugger to assert justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense, the mugger first has to be conducting himself in an otherwise lawful manner. His act of mugging being an unlawful act, he has forfeited any claim of justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense. (There may be some room for a self-defense claim if the mugger had ceased his initial aggression and unlawful act, and then later used deadly force. But that is not relevant in the scenario you posed.)

          “The driver had breached the crosswalk while pedestrians were present, honking his horn, doing everything but shouting ‘gangway for the white guy!‘”

          The car was stopped prior to the instance in which deadly force was used. The right turn on red was lawful. The protesters were marching down the middle of the street, not crossing in the crosswalk.

          “Yes he stopped, but his still running vehicle was one second away from pushing 4000 pounds of steel through innocent pedestrians, clearly a credible threat to life and limb.”

          I don’t think the forces of physics work quite the way you imagine. A car suddenly in motion from a complete stop is generally only a risk of a minor injury to anyone impacted within the span of one second. (I suppose there are exceptions; running over a foot, etc.) Regardless, the car had a lawful right to be where it was, and to be in motion. The jaywalking pedestrians blocking the street and impeding lawful flow of traffic did not have a right to be where they were or to be doing what they were doing.

          “As a matter of fact I believe the Austin PD is right now litigating a case where they claim a suspect in a vehicle was employing a lethal weapon.”

          I’m going to make a wild guess that said vehicle was in motion. You might want to learn the relationship between force, acceleration, and kinetic vs potential energy.

          And from another of your comments: “Not with his partner in a wheelchair in the crosswalk, in the path of the oncoming vehicle.”

          The deceased and his wheelchair-bound girlfriend were neither (legally) in a crosswalk or in the path of an oncoming vehicle.

          The legal crosswalk in which pedestrians could have legally occupied and lawfully used to cross the road was the crosswalk at and across (i.e. perpendicular) the roadway currently facing the red light. In fact, in the video, you can see that the crosswalk at the red light indicates “WALK”.

          Once the driver effected the right turn (thereby crossing into and out of the right-of-way crosswalk), he was clear of any pedestrian right-of-way. At that point, all other crosswalks were irrelevant, because, given the state of the lights at the intersection and the state of the pedestrian signals, those crosswalks – and in particular, the crosswalk parallel to the driver’s original direction of travel and perpendicular to his travel after making the right turn – were not lawful for pedestrians to enter and did not confer right-of-way to pedestrians.

          Further, and specific to the deceased, at the moment deadly force was used, he was not pushing the wheelchair through a lawful crosswalk and he was not (lawfully) in the path of an oncoming vehicle. In order for the former to be true, the latter must be untrue, and vice versa.

          “Yes, I realize many conservative snowflakes would have indeed fled, leaving their disabled loved one in the path of the vehicle. This man did not abandon his loved one.”

          Another absurd, specious, ad hominem claim. But I’ll address the modicum of substance here.

          Your assertion that the deceased was in the act of pushing his wheelchair-bound girlfriend out of the path of an oncoming vehicle and therefore had no other recourse is demonstrably false, in that he approached the vehicle absent the wheelchair. Clearly (whether the car was in motion or not – and it was not) he was not in any imminent danger, if he had time to leave his wheelchair-bound girlfriend alone and then approach the vehicle.

    2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Exactly. The deceased certainly had every right to be carrying his firearm. He did not, however, have a “legal right” to threaten the use of that firearm against the shooter, because the shooter was not threatening him.

      I’m no expert in TX statutes, so I’ll merely assume that they are reasonably consistent with statutes in other states. Generally speaking, one does not have an inherent “legal right” to shoot someone else. The statutory justification for use of deadly force is based on being somehow imperiled by an aggressor.

      I suspect that the author of the linked article is conflating the right to shoot with the right to bear arms.

      1. avatar BLAMMO!! says:

        Or the legal right to kill someone. No one has the right to kill. Only the legally justified use of deadly force. They’re not the same thing.

      2. avatar No one of consequence says:

        Re conflation, yes, and this is a typical tactic of the Left to demonize things like right-to-bear, stand-your-ground, etc.

    3. avatar MouseGun says:

      Hey now, let’s not get bogged down with semantics(facts) when there’s pearls to be clutched and division to sown.

      1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

        Thanks for keeping us on task Mouse! I’ve really got to go yell at my geriatric neighbors about being Not Z’s or something some more, I haven’t peacefully harassed them in hours.

    4. avatar sound awake says:

      exactly

  7. avatar Mark Vaughan says:

    Like 1LT Clebe McClary said in his book Living Proof: “Whoever gets off the first shot wins“.

  8. avatar Chi-Chi Montezuma says:

    I blame the Austin PD and Mayor who allowed the illegal menacing of innocent citizens in traffic by armed communists. They ignored their responsibility to protect the public.

    Now an innocent man who had his life threatened by violent communists on a public street is having his freedom threatened by cowardly dishonorable prosecutors.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Exactly.

  9. avatar John Galt says:

    Good shoot

    Every dead communist a plus

    1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

      Absolutely.

    2. avatar America is the last Domino says:

      Goddamn right.

      The only good communist is a dead communist.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        That only works when the dead people actually are communists. This guy wasn’t. (We could talk about the folly of marching with them, but that’s another story.)

    3. avatar MouseGun says:

      It was only a matter of time, really.
      It’s one thing to let the inmates run the asylum, but when the insanity starts to spill out into the surrounding countryside and ends with townsfolk terrorized and livestock raped, expect pushback from the productive members of society.

      1. avatar Elmer Fudd says:

        You have been watching BLAZING SADDLES again.

    4. avatar Ron says:

      Exactly.

      In my opinion, when you add everything up, America really went wrong when we decided to let our foot up off the gas on communism. We should’ve remained violently anti communist like we were in the 50s until the present day, aggressively challenging it everywhere. We never should’ve opened up China and let it remain an obscure backwater. Any country like Vietnam that fell to communism immediate blockade and denial of any western tech/trade.

      But, hindsight is 2020.

      1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

        God, that alternate reality would have been beautiful. Well stated!

      2. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

        Declassified Russian documents indicate the McCarthy was not only right, he vastly underestimated the depth and breadth of the issue. By the 1930s communists had infiltrated large amounts of American media, academia, and government.

        Listen to Stephan Molyneux’s podcast on McCarthy.

  10. avatar Roger J says:

    Who is going to push around his black girlfriend with no arms and legs in her wheelchair? Will a new masked anarchist step up?

    1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

      The people must know! How long before they wheel her ass out in front of everyone like a piece of meat? She’s perfect! She’s dark skinned, physically disabled, supports BLM so is probably mentally handicapped. Hell, she’s probably a bisexual, gender fluid, trans-human pod person. It’s like hitting the Victim lottery! She’ll get paraded around like a Macy’s Day float I’d wager.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        I’ve seen pictures; she’s actually quite pretty. I bet they’d love to prop her up as a social justice poster child.

        Since she hasn’t thrust herself into the limelight, I’m guessing she’s not a commie/antifa or SJW, but a mostly normal human being who made the mistake of thinking Black Lives Matter cares about black people. She’s probably traumatized and doesn’t care to relive it in public like some kind of performative narcissist. But I could be wrong. The lure of adulation and profit is strong…

        1. avatar Art out West says:

          Based solely on the one photo I saw of the two of them together, she seems like a sweet young woman.

          The death of this young man is tragic but seems clearly justified from a legal and moral viewpoint. I’m sorry for the man who shot him, sorry for the girlfriend, and sorry for the young man’s family. His misguided actions cost him his life.

  11. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    He was legal to carry but not legal to point. This is an issue with liberal writers because they don’t know the law, boundaries or the difference.
    I’m not leaving my weapons at home and I don’t want anyone else too either even if I don’t agree with them. “Protesters” won’t kill each other. Protesters are legal law abiding citizens that are simply unhappy and trying to change things or keep things the way they were/are. It’s about the voice not the weapon.
    At some point someone worse than all the others combined will take advantage of the situation and start dropping those who put themselves in a high wall killbox.

  12. avatar Debbie W. says:

    “””It’s a fit topic for debate and protest. But next time, at the next protest, how about if everybody voluntarily forfeits their right to bear arms and leaves the guns at home and everybody just shouts at each other?

    – Ken Herman in Two men, two guns, one death””””

    That’s right ken herman if the Second Amendment wasn’t around everyone would just SHOUT at each other. That is until someone picks up a brick, stick or uses their hands and feet and then helpless people get injured or killed. So having the Second Amendment handy makes bullies behave themselves much better.
    You might want to sit their and hope someone in a mob with an AK pointing at you and yours does not start shooting then you are more than welcomed to try that. BTW… Do not SHOUT at the guy that could upset him more.

    1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

      It’s like talking to children. Ignorance is one thing. Ignorance can be corrected, and really isn’t an issue. INCOMPETENCE and idolatry and ideological entrenchment are the problems. As I read your response I pictured you explaining that to a 10 year old. People like that have either never even attempted to critically examine their stances on an issue, in which case they should shut the fuck up about it, or are so inept or intentionally obtuse that it is like dealing with a spoiled child. Never ceases to amaze me.

      1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

        TL/DR
        Ken Herman is an idiot and good response Debbie.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I’m working on 75 years of restricting my advocacy of a position to talking, writing, shouting. I can completely agree! However, I will always be able to quickly produce a firearm if threatened. If that doesn’t work for you, let me make a counter suggestion! Why don’t you just stay home, and be a dumb-ass Communist from there?

    1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

      Keep up the counter! Doing a great thing my friend. Question, why do you not include the 28 (that we know of) dead from the riots so far?

      1. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

        Good question. Let me give that some thought.

        It just occurred to me that since this was an army vet and a hair farce vet I could say
        Army 1
        Hair farce 0
        😉

        I grew up in San Antonio so I am authorized to make fun of fly boys. Of course I also tell my baby brother who is army that it stands for Ain’t Ready to be a Marine Yet 😉

        Maybe the answer to all questions is just that I am a smartass.

        But seriously I will think about that and get back to you.

        1. avatar LazrBeam says:

          I used to look down and see above the pocket of my jungle fatigues: U.S. Army. I always imagined it stood for: Uncle Sam ain’t released me yet.

      2. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

        OK, I have been thinking about this. It is hard for me to clearly formulate the idea(s), and put them into words.

        I am tracking incidents where someone took purposeful direct physical aggressive/defensive action against antifa/blm/communist forces, or where communists took purposeful direct physical aggressive action against someone who was willing to defend themselves. Or when someone tried to nominate themselves and/or their friends for a Darwin award.

        So people who weren’t really engaging them, I haven’t included those. People who were killed or injured who refused to become combatants, I haven’t included those. People who were doing something passive, like just being outside a business with a weapon and then getting assaulted but not really engaging, I haven’t included those.

        Vince Fosters Ghost brought up the women hit by the car in Seattle. I don’t think that driver really meant to do that. I think he was going down the highway at highway speed and came to unexpected road block, swerved around it, swerved to miss a crowd of people he encountered unexpectedly on the other side, and hit those women by accident (and I have seen no evidence that he intentionally went up an off ramp, though that claim was made initially as VFG mentioned). He probably thought he had come upon an accident and didn’t figure it out until he was past it(passed? IDK, the grammar/diction Not Zs will correct me). When I first saw that set up I thought it was an ambush. I watch a lot of defense videos and you see roadblocks like that in 3rd world countries for shakedowns and kidnappings. And as I write this I realize that VFG didn’t mean it as a +2 for Good Guys, but rather as a -2 for Commies because they were playing in traffic. Sometimes I am a little slow.

        I have been thinking about David Dorn. There he was trying to use his presence to get people to leave his friends business alone. He wasn’t really taking direct purposeful action in the moment. He didn’t engage or try to engage, he just got slaughtered.

        I had thought about the machete wielding guy in Dallas a while back. And I thought he wasn’t really trying to engage, just to scare people away. But then I decided to look it up while posting this, to get his name, and found this; https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2020/06/09/police-give-additional-details-in-beating-of-machete-wielding-man-amid-dallas-protest/ Now I am thinking maybe he is a -1 for the Good Guys. He definitely took direct purposeful physical action. But it seems to have been as ill conceived and poorly executed as the lefts Eff ups. And if we can’t laugh at ourselves, then we shouldn’t really laugh at others. Not that any of this is a laughing matter, but I have spent 25 years in healthcare and gallows humor just comes naturally. We will laugh at you while we are trying to put you back together.

        Now the driver in Austin, the subject of this article, he could have put up his hands and begged for his life. Maybe they would have let him go or maybe they would have dragged him out and beat him to death. We will never know. But instead he decided to take purposeful direct physical action. The Seattle puncher was not in immediate danger. He went over to people who were being a problem and punched one of them. The stabber lady was being harassed and decided to take direct purposeful physical action.

        Maybe someone else with more intelligence and verbal ability can understand what I am going for and clarify what I am thinking. I guess the update would be;

        Score Keeping

        Good Guys 1.5
        Commies -8

        Score break downs

        Good Guys
        (1 for AK commie shot in Austin, .5 for Seattle Antifa Bike Punch, 1 for Portland stabber lady, -1 for Machete comes to Dallas)

        https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/08/portland-antifa-cries-police-assistance-woman-appeared-harassing-stabs-one/

        https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/austin-motorist-shoots-kills-protester-with-rifle-after-crowd-stopped-his-car-video/

        https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2020/07/24/antifa-cold-cocked-blocking-traffic/

        https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2020/06/09/police-give-additional-details-in-beating-of-machete-wielding-man-amid-dallas-protest/

        Commies
        (NFAC shot 3 of their own, Aurora protester wounded 2 other protesters and another jumped off a bridge, -2 for Playing in Traffic in Seattle.)

        https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8561931/Jeep-speeds-Colorado-BLM-march-demonstrator-accidentally-shoots-two-protesters.html

        https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2020/07/26/nfac-shooting-louisville-being-investigated-negligent-shooting/5514492002/

        https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/protests/protesters-hit-by-car-on-i-5/281-50f663e8-7adf-4a1a-873d-96540dbc624b

        Of course, as I said before, the real answer to all questions is that I am a smart ass. This started out as a gag about the left LARPing as operators, being inept, and hurting themselves. Somewhere along the way it turned into something real.

    2. avatar Vince Foster’s Ghost says:

      Don’t forget the two womyn who were hit at high speed while blocking an interstate highway in WA. Supposedly the black driver got on a closed highway by driving down an off ramp, but no one was sure when it initially happened and I haven’t seen an update.

      Protesting on an interstate has to be one of the dumber things you could do, especially at night. Your prog buddies may be sure that 2+2=5 and Western Science is a tool of the White Cis Gendered Oppressor, but physics is very real. Watching a couple of tattooed freaks with multi colored hair fly 20’ was somewhat amusing, but also just sad.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        The saddest thing is that it didn’t happen to the people who let them block the freeway.

  13. avatar TheBSonTTAG says:

    There was no legal right for the “peaceful protester” with the AK to point it at the driver of the car. They were blocking traffic and then surrounded his car while he was trying to go about his business and “peaceful protester” got exactly what he deserved.

    I give absolutely zero fucks for any of these “protesters” in the first place and even less for the ones who block traffic and just act like a general nuisance as is the case here. None of them are “helping” their cause by doing this. The moron who shot at the car as he was leaving hopefully is arrested and charged too.

    1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

      Yes sir. Absolutely.

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      “There was no legal right for the “peaceful protester” with the AK to point it at the driver of the car.”

      Fake news. Even the perpetrators attorney has admitted that Foster did not point the gun, only that it appeared he was about to raise his gun.

      Then, frightened snowflake driver quite literally ‘jumped the gun‘ and shot him because he ‘thought‘ he was about to raise his weapon.

      Many people are saying the driver will be charged with voluntary manslaughter, and the courts will decide.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        You took great pains in previous posts to point out (alliteration!) that witness consensus says the now-dead guy began to raise his rifle and therefore didn’t threaten anyone. Now you’re retconning it into “someone thought he might.”

        But here’s the question. If an angry crowd is banging on your car, and seeing someone in it start to raise a rifle in your direction — to point it at you — doesn’t meet the threshold for reasonable fear of deadly harm, then what does? How long was the guy in the car supposed to wait?

        1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          I think the prosecution and defense will be working triple time to get the right jury selected. That’s the key during ‘these unprecedented times’ (sorry, soo tired of hearing that phrase lol)

          If it’s a jury of POTG or close, he walks. The people in the street will get little sympathy for playing there. I’m willing to bet that a large cross section of citizens are tired of this nonsense.

      2. avatar Ned Pepper says:

        Whiner, “many people are saying” you’re an idiot. I mean, many. Way many.

      3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Not “fake news” but rather, factual and objectively correct. Regardless of what the deceased did or did not do, the deceased did not have a lawful right to point his gun at the driver.

        But more to the point: he did not have the right to threaten the driver. And with respect to the driver’s legal justification for the use of deadly force, the question isn’t whether the deceased actually threatened him, but rather whether the driver was put in mortal fear by what he reasonably believed to be a threat.

        I ask again: would someone seated in a car reasonably perceive the threat of a long gun carried at low ready by someone approaching differently from how someone standing would perceive the same?

        (Yes. The answer is yes. And good luck proving otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt, especially given the circumstances.)

        As to your other claims: the driver was lawfully driving. He lawfully turned right on red (something that is legal unless posted otherwise, throughout the vast majority of the country). The “protesters” were unlawfully in the street and unlawfully impeding the lawful movement of lawful traffic.

        He was where he had a lawful right to be, doing what he had a lawful right to be doing. The “protesters” were not.

        1. avatar Jimbo says:

          The dead dude mouthing off about how everyone would be too much of a pussy to oppose him and his rifle at the protest and posting it to social media doesn’t hurt the Sgt’s case any either

  14. avatar DerryM says:

    The underlying issue in most cases such as this is that the “News Media” has conditioned many people to expect and accept an instant judgement/instant gratification approach to events the Left wants to sensationalize for political purposes. Whatever is reported/decided in the immediate aftermath of a potentially politically valuable event becomes the Gospel Truth. Subsequent development of clearer, more accurate facts is ignored or dismissed if they contradict that narrative. The Michael Brown and George Floyd incidents are two perfect examples of this. Looks like the Austin, TX event will be the same.

    1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      Exactly!!

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      “The underlying issue in most cases such as this is that the “News Media” has conditioned many people to expect and accept an instant judgement“

      And as evidence to support your assertion, I give you 95% of the posts on this thread.

      But I for one, welcome a thorough investigation before charges are filed, it’s the American way.

      1. avatar Ron says:

        No, no you don’t.

      2. avatar DerryM says:

        “But I for one, welcome a thorough investigation before charges are filed, it’s the American way.”
        …and that is what should happen with “News” reporting…report the known facts and update them as more facts become known, but only ever the facts. American Journalism has devolved into a Propaganda Machine where facts are conflated with agenda-driven opinion to create politically motivated narratives that mostly turn-out to have nothing to do with the actual facts of an incident(s) such as the Austin, TX incident. Thorough investigations are eventually made, but the original narratives created by the News Media are rarely, if ever, updated because the manufactured narrative has served its Propaganda purpose.

        “And as evidence to support your assertion, I give you 95% of the posts on this thread.”
        Comments posted here on TTAG are not News of Record as the Main Stream Media purports their reportage to be. So, there is a significant difference. You can write any combination of facts, opinion and perception and throw it against the proverbial wall here on TTAG to see if it sticks and it makes little difference, except possibly, to those who read TTAG daily. Write the same thing and print it in the New York Times (et al), or report it on ABC Evening News (et al), and it magically becomes endowed with a Truth Factor as “News of Record”, people believe it and act upon it [mostly because they do not see how biased and agenda-driven “American Journalism” is*].
        We choose truth over facts!” Joe Biden, Iowa State Fair, August 9, 2019

        *One might be hard-pressed to point at a time where American Journalism was not biased one way or another in the History of the American Constitutional Republic. I studied Journalism for two years in High School and two years in College, then gave it up when I realized a Free Press was a Biased Press and there was no conscionable alternative.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          I must agree with you, some ‘news’ outlets are actually just propaganda organs used to mislead the population.
          And sadly, many Americans have suffered greatly because of this intentional misinformation and deception, here’s a good example:

          “In April, Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the Annenberg Public Policy Center and Dolores Albarracin of the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign published a peer-reviewed study examining how Americans’ media diets affected their beliefs about the coronavirus.
          Administering a nationally representative phone survey with 1,008 respondents, they found that people who got most of their information from mainstream print and broadcast outlets tended to have an accurate assessment of the severity of the pandemic and their risks of infection. But those who relied on conservative sources, such as Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, were more likely to believe in conspiracy theories or unfounded rumors, such as the belief that taking vitamin C could prevent infection, that the Chinese government had created the virus, and that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exaggerated the pandemic’s threat “to damage the Trump presidency.”

          As Rush Limbaugh said, ‘it’s just the common flu, people‘

          Of course, we all know the common flu doesn’t kill 160,000 people in less than six months.
          Yesterday alone, over 1200 Americans died from Covid, and the trend doesn’t look good, despite what President Trump claims.

        2. avatar DerryM says:

          Oh, come now, you do not agree with me, otherwise, you would not have misdirected to reference a study on COVID-19 information that drew a set of allegedly valid conclusions based on a phone poll of 1008 people out of a population of 330 million. That amounts to a sample of 0.000003%, which is statistically laughably bad science.
          America has divided itself into two diametrically opposed factions. Each one believes in its own absolute legitimacy and in the “other side’s” absolute illegitimacy. The “Free Press” lies directly and indirectly to the American people from both directions in service to a chosen side. America is on the brink of tearing itself apart, and the outcome has the potential to be devastating to everyone. I expect we will see the shaping of an outcome sometime after November 3, 2020.

          I provide some links below.

          Anyone who wishes to can read the “study” here:
          https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/the-relation-between-media-consumption-and-misinformation-at-the-outset-of-the-sars-cov-2-pandemic-in-the-us/

          Yes, it takes the seasonal Flu several years to kill as many people as COVID-19 supposedly has in six months. See:
          https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html

          Recent figures comparing the U.S. to other countries are reported by NPR here:
          https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/08/05/899365887/charts-how-the-u-s-ranks-on-covid-19-deaths-per-capita-and-by-case-count

  15. avatar Rusty - Always Carry - Chains says:

    Your legal right to carry a rifle ends the moment you point it at someone without just cause. Based on what I know at this point I would have drawn and shot like the person in the car did. These idiot LARPing Leftists running around with rifles in public need to understand that rifle carries a heavy burden. Based on the interview recorded of the idiot shortly before he got shot, he clearly wasn’t up to that burden.

    1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

      That interview aged like milk outside in summer didn’t it?

      1. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

        Mid August summer…

        1. avatar 9x39 says:

          …on an equatorial landlocked region.

        2. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

          “…on an equatorial landlocked region.”

          With no wind…

        3. avatar 9x39 says:

          …and encephalitis infected mosquitoes the size of fruit bats.

  16. avatar Prndll says:

    I seriously doubt he had an assault rifle pointed at him….I could not read past that.

    1. avatar WI Patriot says:

      Well, then perhaps you should polish on your reading and comprehension skills…

      “as a masked stranger raises an assault rifle in their direction”

      1. avatar Prndll says:

        Ok. I went back through it. All of it. I know that it is what the article says. I still highly doubt it was an assault rifle.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          It was an “assault weapon”, since there is no definition of such a thing, a knife or a banana might also be an “assault weapon”.

      2. avatar CentralVirginian says:

        Assault rifle=selective-fire. Firearms reporting is woefully inaccurate on the details.

      3. avatar Hannibal says:

        Read what he wrote again.

        You think the protestor had a select-fire rifle out there?

  17. avatar WI Patriot says:

    Obviously the best man won…God loves the Infantry…

    1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      In my experience it is the gospel truth..

      God loves the Infantry!

      1. The proof God loves the Infantry is evident, the sky is blue.

  18. avatar tdiinva says:

    If you go to a gun rights demonstration by all means open carry a slung rifle. If you go to protest masks and social distancing orders keep the rifle at home. If you carry concealed go ahead. If you want to open carry carry a pistol where people can see it in a holster. Do not be in a position where you present a firearm in an ambiguous manner in a volitile situation.

  19. avatar JW says:

    Protest with a rifle all you want, just be smart about it. If you’re they type of idiot that wants to be confrontational and get up in people’s faces….you should leave the gun at home.

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      This. Doesn’t matter how you carry it.

  20. avatar trv says:

    It’s clear that both persons involved were exercising their rights under the Constitution and the law in Texas. Having said that, the person killed was aiming a rifle at another person. That in and of itself is a life threatening gesture. Under Texas law the person on the receiving end of that threat can legally use force including deadly force to end the threat. As long as the person using deadly force did not instigate the confrontation. That is key to using deadly force in Texas.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Unfortunately, there may be a hundred witnesses (protesters) saying it was all the shooter’s fault, with no one countering that.

  21. avatar GS650G says:

    It was predicted that a motorist would lay someone out for pointing a rifle at them. The Detroit incident with the motorcyclist was the warning. You lift a gun up there better be a real threat. Reving engines or driving around probably doesn’t cut it. Next time let motorists go on their wayinstead of trying to use their car and body for pyrotechnics.
    Maybe if they didn’t destroy and instead just protested there would be any trouble.

    1. avatar David Bradford says:

      Not defending Detroit in any way here BUT, The incident with the motorcyclist was in Lansing(East Lansing) Michigan (roughly 100 miles away from Detroit) That would be like saying this shooting in Austin Texas was the “Houston Texas shooting incident”

  22. avatar Mercutio says:

    Hmm… he IS wearing a black hat……

  23. avatar BOBO says:

    Hey Ken

    “But next time, at the next protest, how about if everybody voluntarily forfeits their right to bear arms and leaves the guns at home and everybody just shouts at each other?”

    how about f—ck and NO
    it will not be me alone vs a mob of dozens!

    how about your mobs not block roads and beat on cars!

    1. avatar Anymouse says:

      1) Perry wasn’t protesting or counterprotestering — he was driving in his car.
      2) How about protestors quit playing in the street and surrounding vehicles that stay on the street? There have been protestors is several states that have been run over. Either get a permit and have streets closed off, or stay on the f-ing sidewalk.
      3) Strategically, I agree with no OC at a protest, unless the protest is about guns. They’re being used as props, not defensive tools. If the protest isn’t about guns, OC guns become the stories and wash out the original message. What was NFAC protesting when they shot themselves?

  24. avatar Shiffrod says:

    I wonder if the short interview Foster gave the night before would be admissible evidence of his intent. He seems to imply that he carried his rifle to intimidate rather than defend himself.

    1. avatar Broke_It says:

      Lol, I saw that interview out of context (didn’t know he was killed moments later) and thought to myself, “this fool is really gonna step in it one day.” That didn’t take long

  25. avatar Ralph says:

    Yeah, the attacker with the rifle was a really good guy. He wasn’t threatening the driver. He was just asking for help clearing his rifle.

    Hey, Herman — GFY. You are part of the reason why most people with at least half a brain despise and mistrust “journalists.”

  26. avatar American Patriot says:

    How bout just stop protesting about every f**king thing that offends your snowflake ass.

  27. avatar Dude says:

    The mostly peaceful rioter thought he had (in his own words) a do-nothing p_ssy that he was going to intimidate. How about stay out of the road unless you get a permit to shut it down? Once again, blood is on the hands of a democrat mayor failing to do his job and keep the public safe. They keep giving these rioters a pass to harass commuters and businesses. The author is an idiot.

  28. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    The open carry of long guns is not the problem. Having negligent discharges and pointing a gun at unarmed people is a problem. And that person who you think you can intimidate, by pointing your gun at them. They just might turn around and shoot you. Since they are legally carrying concealed.

    Long gun open carry is our 2A birthright. That was stolen from us in California. But don’t be stupid about it. And pointing a gun at unarmed people in a car, who honked their horn, is being stupid. Honking your car horn is communication. Its speech. And you have a right to do it.

    1. avatar binder says:

      Long guns have become a problem because people have them in single point slings and worse yet with hands on pistol grips or even unslung. You have people walking around in Walmart battle rattle making people nervous. I know at the end of the day it is a people problem, but long guns can sure enhance the issue.

      Personal open carry ‘uniform’. Nice shoes, khakis, collared shirt and leather holster. Never an issue, I wonder why.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Go back 10(?) years. And look at the pictures of people openly carrying their long guns all across the country. There was not a single person wearing camouflage or body armor. There are even pictures of women with a rifle slung over their should and carrying a baby. Wearing camo is perceived to give a person authority. I think that’s why some of them do it. But wearing a three piece suit and carrying a rifle or a shotgun, I think has the same effect.

        When the Oath Keepers deployed to Ferguson MO, they wore camo and body armor. That and the open carry of long guns, stopped the riots. Without firing a shot, by the way.
        (smile)

  29. avatar jakee308 says:

    There probably isn’t any way to be sure of what was going on in the mind of the guy who raised his firearm to Sgt Perry. He’s gone and all we have are a few words he said that of course were not on topic but could be looked at in that way.

    Being young and inexperienced he may not have realized he’d raised the firearm into covering Sgt. Perry. It’s easy to do if you lack training and disciplined for mistakes of such actions. People can lose track of their point of aim and think they’re only “aiming” if it’s up to their shoulder and their looking down the sights. But that’s not the case with long arms.

    I’ve been chastised at the range for aiming off the hip but I think it’s a good thing to do if you have a laser sight to train yourself to be aware of just where your aim point is in regards to someone else’s viewpoint.

    One reason why I think that the ready low position is not a good one. Ready high is better and makes you more aware of where the muzzle of your gun is.

    It also probably wouldn’t have mattered if the person being aimed at wasn’t a trained soldier. A civilian might’ve paused a bit. Not finding fault with the Sgt. It is what it is.

  30. avatar GuitarSlayer says:

    Once again the corrupt media tries to twist the issue….
    THESE WERE NOT TWO LAW ABIDING CITIZENS…..
    IT WAS ONE LAW ABIDING CITIZEN AND ONE CRIMINAL POINTING A RIFLE….
    This is EXACTLY why you can’t trust the media in this country….

    Oh, and I’ll be sure to leave my weapon at home if you do 😉 ….(you fkn idiot)

  31. avatar Xaun Loc says:

    Contrary to the authors claim, there is no situation in which two law-abiding citizens have a legal right to attempt to kill each other.

    There can be a situation in which two law-abiding citizens both THINK they have a right to kill the other.

    There are several problem areas:

    1. Under self-defense law, the party defending himself must not be in the process of committing a crime.

    2. Under self-defense law, the initial aggressor has no right of self-defense unless he breaks off the confrontation, clearly indicates his intent not to continue, and afterwards the other party chooses to become an aggressor.

    3. (Contrary to the opinion of most LEOs and accepted in most LEO-involved shootings) the mere presence of a firearm does not constitute a lethal threat.

    Rather than two law-abiding citizens who both had a right to attempt to kill each other, it seems likely this case involved two citizens neither of whom had a right to attempt to kill the other.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      You always have the right to be ABLE to kill someone. Both men were exercising that right; no problems there.

      The sticky part here is figuring out if and when that transitioned into the right — the unavoidable necessity — for either of them to either threaten it or to actually DO it.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      I don’t agree. I can think of many situations where two people would be legally justified in shooting each other.

      Here’s an example: a police officer is chasing a murder suspect through backyards, jumping over fences. The police officer is fully justified under law to chase the suspect through private property; assume he has probable cause and the suspect is in ‘immediate flight.’

      You, an average citizen, hear yelling and go out in your backyard. The murder suspect runs past you screaming “watch out, some crazy guy with a gun is running after me!”

      You draw your own gun and start to retreat back towards your house but, as you do, the police officer comes into view. It’s dark. You can’t see his badge, but you see he has a gun in one hand. You raise your own gun in WHAT YOU PERCEIVE to be self-defense. The police officer sees you aiming a gun at him.

      Both of you are legally justified in being where you are and defending yourself from deadly force. Both of you might end up shot and neither one may be legally guilty of something.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        They had an example similar to this in my permit class. They presented a situation where you might decide to help someone, but you didn’t know the entire story. The missing context made it seem like the good guy was the bad guy. You would be responsible for the death / injury if you had intervened. Approach third party encounters very carefully.

        1. avatar Red in CO says:

          Read about a situation once where someone witnessed, in a convenience store, an armed black man on the customer wide of the counter holding a cowering Pakistani guy behind the counter at gun point. Turned out the black dude was an employee and a responsibly armed citizen, and the Pakistani guy had tried to rob the place with a knife. Somehow one chased the other around the counter 180 degrees, and thus we have a situation where it’s “obvious” what’s happening… except when it’s not. I will never even consider intervening on behalf of a random third party unless I have personally witnessed the entire situation unfold

      2. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

        “I don’t agree. I can think of many situations where two people would be legally justified in shooting each other. ”

        Got one for you –

        A no-knock raid on the wrong house…

        1. avatar The Truth About Breonna Taylor says:

          How about a no knock raid on the right house where they did knock neither party could hear the other.

  32. avatar Elmer Fudd says:

    Some of is remember Reginald Denny. We are not going to allow a racist, rioting mob to beat is to death. The mob also had other weapons besides guns. Molotov cocktails and flame thrower are becoming popular acrutrurments. Arson had become common. How long before someone who is trapped by a mob of rioters gets incinerated?

    1. avatar James Fields says:

      Oh, sure, you remember that guy. But you don’t remember me. I’m rotting in prison for hitting the wrong pedal while people were destroying my car. I get no respect.

  33. avatar What the Hell happened to this place! says:

    We are seeing Commies not allowing Self-Defense of our country or ourselves/families!

    What the Hell happened to this place!

    Did we let in too many Commies into the greatest country in the World!?

    1. avatar Gordon in MO says:

      We may have let too many commies into the country but the real problem is, we let our home grow commies from the 1960s take over education so they can turn out millions of indoctrinated young socialists (communists lite) every year.

      Demographics are in their favor, they will win control at the ballot box by 2030 if not before. I hope not this year.

      Be Prepared !

  34. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Rights in conflict. Always an interesting intellectual exercise.

  35. avatar James Fields says:

    Well I hope the driver gets a long sentence. I need some company in prison. None of you came to my defense when I panicked and hit the gas by mistake in Charlottesville!

    I bet none of you even remember me.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “I bet none of you even remember me.”

      I do. Heard you were a fine person on both sides.

  36. avatar Scott says:

    Ah, that sneaky little word “equity”, substituted for “equality”.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      They love their buzz words.

  37. avatar FedUp says:

    “But among the possibilities is that in this tragic case, under our gun and self-defense laws, we had two law-abiding citizens, availing themselves of their rights, who had the legal right to attempt to kill each other.”

    Please explain how Foster had a legal right to kill somebody.
    Otherwise, I’ll just have to assume you’re full of shit.
    Is it because Perry stopped his car and rolled down his window?
    For that is what his attackers seem to think gave them the right to attack him.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      I am also curious about this. Maybe he means once the shooting started, assuming the motorist shot first.

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        But when a mob assaults somebody and he begins shooting in self defense, does that give the mob legal authority to return fire? If not, Foster didn’t have the authority to shoot back.

  38. avatar Montana Actual says:

    I don’t agree. I do agree he was legally open carrying, and was all for that, but when you block traffic and restrict peoples movements while open carrying, you become an enforcer. Every single one of these “protests” that takes to the middle of the streets is illegal. That said, if this was actually about freedom, like Virginia, it would be totally different. Instead, it’s about the opposite of freedom. It represents segregation and the opposing force that allows people free will in America. There was virtually NO violence in Virginia. People cleaned up after themselves. Maybe that is our problem. Nice law abiding citizens finish last. But there is a medium, and unless you want further infringements, we need to organize and find it together. However, now, there would inevitably be violence due to the lefts violent actions to enforce their demands – which who TF actually knows what those are anymore outside of segregation and a clusterfuck of socialism/communism/fascism.

  39. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

    “Law-abiding” people don’t block thoroughfares PERIOD!

    Good riddance to Garret Foster, when you ally with violent Marxists/Anarchists and approach a vehicle in a threatening maner while armed you get what you deserve.

  40. avatar Ben Bow says:

    There is a WORLD of difference, in a man walking around with a rifle, who goes out of his way to go up to another man, who is in a car, attempting to drive on the public street, and the man in the car, who has a pistol, and is simply trying to leave the area.

    The man with the rifle inserted himself into the problem.

    The man in the car had the problem walk up to him with a rifle.

    MR. AK was either going to get shot by somebody, or he was going to shoot someone. There is no other universe of possibilities. Unfortunately, this was the best case scenario for a guy with a rifle, an attitude and apparently no sense.

  41. avatar Matt says:

    I disagree with the premise that there were two people with the legal right to be armed on the street that night. Were both persons who were armed legally allowed to do so? Yes. But that is as far as a proper and objective comparison goes. Let’s start with the man in the car. By state law, he was perfectly legal in everything he did up to and including his actions taken to protect his life. What about the other man? Well, he was legally allowed to own the firearm he was carrying, and he was legally allowed open carry his firearm in public. He was even legally allowed to exercise his first amendment rights to seek redress for his grievances. BUT, he was participating in an illegal protest. (Did everybody forget that important little tidbit?). And when he joined the mob in surrounding the driver in his car and then brandished his weapon to order the driver to lower his window, he paid the price. Because I made a mistake earlier in another post saying that there was only one reason to point a firearm at someone, and that was to kill. There was another reason why on would point a firearm at someone, and that is to coerce a victim into bending to the will of the aggressor. Either action merits a response which includes lethal force on the part of the victim in Texas.

    The idiot made a very stupid mistake and paid for with his life. I won’t lose sleep over this guy.

  42. avatar texmln says:

    Please. What a nonsense article. One guy is carrying around a gun and illegally blocking traffic and raises his weapon at a driver who had every legal right to be there and not have a rifle pointed at him. Driver shoots him in self defense. This isn’t even a discussion. Armed Marxist clown blocking the street is in the wrong EVERY TIME. He had no right to block the street and no cause to raise his weapon at someone LEGALLY driving down the road.

  43. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    Garrett Foster made a couple of mistakes and it cost him his life, sometimes stupidity can be expensive.

  44. avatar Grim Reaper says:

    Ron says: August 5, 2020 at 09:11

    In my opinion, when you add everything up, America really went wrong when we decided to let our foot up off the gas on communism. We should’ve remained violently anti communist like we were in the 50s until the present day, aggressively challenging it everywhere.

    ++_So the result is we’re now just as bad or about the same, or no better than, communist countries. Look at the national debt and the money printers in congress and the POTUS is fine with it as well and has no clue. Long term debt, 10 year notes pay one half of one % – like that’s going to last. When interest rates go back to 5% or higher the system comes down. Real coin, silver, is on a tear. Your green paper has basically zero value. Think Mad Max times and end times … Millions out of work, many to be evicted soon now unless the government cuts more checks. So oh yeah things are great. Just keep whistling past the grave yard.

    We never should’ve opened up China and let it remain an obscure backwater. Any country like Vietnam that fell to communism immediate blockade and denial of any western tech/trade.

    ++_China has won. They know money is gold and silver and they, and the Russian communists, have stock piled a cheit load of it and will soon push the US $ aside with their gold backed currency. Gold in Fort Knox? That was sold off years ago.

    ++_Ron’s comment I write about was pretty much the only decent comment in this entire thread. As a thug was acting stupid and got what he deserved. Nothing to see or discuss plus there was Miner the 49er’s drivel posted in quantity as well.

  45. avatar Joseph says:

    Don’t make it complicated, it’s an easy case. One guy was carrying a gun for show and tell and the other one wasn’t.

  46. avatar Nelson says:

    TOTAL NONSENSE written by an Austinite limousine marxist: he’s making bullsht moral equivalence to excuse the ASSAILANT vs a lawful DEFENDER, as if they’re equally ‘guilty’ as to not paint the SJW-Taliban terrorist assailant who MUZZLED the Uber driver with his AK47.

    Commies truly are degenerate lunatics.

  47. avatar Jaque says:

    A bullshit premise by the author.

    The dead man committed a criminal act by brandishing his weapon. The driver, in fear of his life shot first in self defense. Witnesses have confirmed this.

    The Darwin effect claims another idiot. If you dont want to get shot, then never point a gun at anyone.

    Now will the driver get a fair trial ?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email