Protestor gunned down in Austin - Daniel Perry trial

[Frank59]

I just have to say WOW.....three days ago I sent an email to KXAN asking them why they are portraying Garrett Foster as a some kind of damn martyr and haven't shown the street interview of him from Twitter where he talks about the cops killing him if he uses the gun against them and the people that they are protesting being too big of pu***es to do anything about it.

10 O'clock news tonight......they showed the whole interview while of course bleeping out Garrett's colorful language.

Props to KXAN for airing that.

As Anton said after flipping the coin in No Country for Old Men......Well Done!!

 

[cycleguy2300]

Again, unless they are trying to steal your car burn it, ETA WITH YOU IN IT, or are doing damage that you cant recover otherwise, i.e. insurance, that will be a pretty thin defense to running down a crowd, especially when you can't pick and choose who you're going to be hitting/stopping. IMHO.

The spirit of the criminal mischief is meant to be at your home or real property. I know your car is an extension of your home for certain laws but there are specific use of force justification laws pertaining to incidents involving you in your car, i.e. them trying to get in or drag you out breaking windows etc, so I'm not sure the criminal mischief law would apply to you driving thru town at night since other sections cover that. Just thinking out loud.

Candcallen,

I hear what you are saying and understand your caution, however with what I have seen with other similar protests, taken with the riotous behavior of Austin's protests, added to the fact a large group of people is becoming very violent and assaultive, I think it *could* be reasonable to believe you were at imminent risk of serious bodily injury or death and deadly force justified (either moving the vehicle or other means at hand).

Justification and reasonableness cannot look at each provocation in isolation, the totality of circumstances, including personal knowledge, second hand knowledge from another reliable person,the groups prior statements etc can all build up justification for action.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

 

[AdRock]

How about the a$$hole protester that shot three times at the car?

He should be facing some charge(s)

I haven't read anything about the 2nd shooter or any statement he's made so let me know if my possible explanation is way out there.

Lets say guy didn't know Garrett was near the car. He's down at the protest, he has an LTC, he's armed, but isn't acting the fool like the rest of the people. He sees a car in the crowd, the car honks, then shots come from the car, so he pulls and fires back. All while thinking the person in the car is the bad actor and that's he's doing the right thing. Only to find out after the fact that that wasn't the case.

Could a scenario like that be why he was also let go after the incident?

 

[Axxe55]

I haven't read anything about the 2nd shooter or any statement he's made so let me know if my possible explanation is way out there.

Lets say guy didn't know Garrett was near the car. He's down at the protest, he has an LTC, he's armed, but isn't acting the fool like the rest of the people. He sees a car in the crowd, the car honks, then shots come from the car, so he pulls and fires back. All while thinking the person in the car is the bad actor and that's he's doing the right thing. Only to find out after the fact that that wasn't the case.

Could a scenario like that be why he was also let go after the incident?

Have you watched any of the videos, or read of the accounts of the events that night? That is not what happened. Garrett Foster was a radical BLM member, and was well known for carrying an AK to such events. Not too long before he was shot, he made some very damning comments about being confronted to a reporter.

He pointed the gun at the motorist. The motorist felt threatened and shot Foster. Motorist drove off a couple of blocks and called 911 and waited for LE to arrive. His statement lined up with what LE found.

Simply put, Foster was looking for trouble and found it that night.

 

[cvgunman]

Have you watched any of the videos, or read of the accounts of the events that night? That is not what happened. Garrett Foster was a radical BLM member, and was well known for carrying an AK to such events. Not too long before he was shot, he made some very damning comments about being confronted to a reporter.

He pointed the gun at the motorist. The motorist felt threatened and shot Foster. Motorist drove off a couple of blocks and called 911 and waited for LE to arrive. His statement lined up with what LE found.

Simply put, Foster was looking for trouble and found it that night.

He's asking in regards to the second shooter. Garrett is said to have not fired AK and that another individual in the crowd shot at the car after Garrett was ventilated. Sounds like he is trying to find cause for why second shooter shot his weapon.

 

[AdRock]

He's asking in regards to the second shooter. Garrett is said to have not fired AK and that another individual in the crowd shot at the car after Garrett was ventilated. Sounds like he is trying to find cause for why second shooter shot his weapon.

Exactly. I'm wondering if that's why the second shooter fired at the vehicle. And if that's ends up being the case that might be why they were also let go.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Exactly. I'm wondering if that's why the second shooter fired at the vehicle. And if that's ends up being the case that might be why they were also let go.

Defense of others. TPC Chapter 9 should be required reading. In this case, 9.33 might apply.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

 

[Axxe55]

Exactly. I'm wondering if that's why the second shooter fired at the vehicle. And if that's ends up being the case that might be why they were also let go.

My fault then. I was misunderstanding your position.

If LE questioned the other shooter, and let him go, then I don't see anything wrong. I'm pretty sure if they were in doubt of his reasons for discharging a firearm in public, he'd have been arrested.

 

[AdRock]

My fault then. I was misunderstanding your position.

If LE questioned the other shooter, and let him go, then I don't see anything wrong. I'm pretty sure if they were in doubt of his reasons for discharging a firearm in public, he'd have been arrested.

It's all good. Agreed.

 

[Renegade]

I haven't read anything about the 2nd shooter or any statement he's made so let me know if my possible explanation is way out there.

Lets say guy didn't know Garrett was near the car. He's down at the protest, he has an LTC, he's armed, but isn't acting the fool like the rest of the people. He sees a car in the crowd, the car honks, then shots come from the car, so he pulls and fires back. All while thinking the person in the car is the bad actor and that's he's doing the right thing. Only to find out after the fact that that wasn't the case.

Could a scenario like that be why he was also let go after the incident?

Could be, but he is going to be hard pressed to find legal justification from what we know. Shooting a fleeing felon has been illegal (except under small circumstances) for decades now. In Garner SCOTUS ruled, "[deadly force] may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others." Which is going to be impossible.

So his best defense would be if the driver pointed a gun in his direction, than he would be able to claim the same defense as the driver did for shooting the BLM'er.

Either way, this is a great example of you better know your facts before you insert yourself in a situation. I bet there were many other LTC in that crowd that kept their gun holstered, and are not paying lawyers right now.

 

[Texasgordo]

Lol

 

[Renegade]

Could be, but he is going to be hard pressed to find legal justification from what we know. Shooting a fleeing felon has been illegal (except under small circumstances) for decades now. In Garner SCOTUS ruled, "[deadly force] may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others." Which is going to be impossible.

So guess most saw it, but I need to point out the irony here.

Second Shooter was in town there to protest police violence, but because SCOTUS ruled against police decades ago, the Case Law he needs now no longer exists and actually works against him.

 

[benenglish]

Lol

OK. YM has now lost me. I used to find some useful tidbits on his channel. I will no longer bother looking.

 

[V-Tach]

YM.......not surprised at all........

 

[candcallen]

Speaking of losers....

 

[Davetex]

Lost me too, that was a load of fertilizer.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Could be, but he is going to be hard pressed to find legal justification from what we know. Shooting a fleeing felon has been illegal (except under small circumstances) for decades now. In Garner SCOTUS ruled, "[deadly force] may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others." Which is going to be impossible.

So his best defense would be if the driver pointed a gun in his direction, than he would be able to claim the same defense as the driver did for shooting the BLM'er.

Either way, this is a great example of you better know your facts before you insert yourself in a situation. I bet there were many other LTC in that crowd that kept their gun holstered, and are not paying lawyers right now.

Garner doesn't prohibit shooting a fleeing felon, it prohibits it is certain cases. In this case the 2nd shooter *MAY* have believed the shooting to have been unprovoked (incorrect, but possibly reasonable)
and feared this armed person who had just fired shots at someone was going to return and do more harm.

That said I think the 2nd shooter has thin justification at best. I would love to see him charged with rioting. Was he in the street interfering with vehicular traffic too? Where was this guy in relation to the car, should he have seen Garrett raise his rifle? If so, he *should have known* the shooting was justified and his reasonableness goes away and he is committing agg assault....

e.g. if I am chasing an armed felony suspect I could use deadly force if I can articulate a reasonable belief this fleeing felon will cause death or SBI (fleeing towards an occupied school, or a crowd, weapon still in hand etc)

As you pointed out, you NEED to know the law and case law before you start playing with guns. You don't want to be looking up penal code to make sure it was a good shoot after the fact.




Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

 

[jordanmills]

Garner doesn't prohibit shooting a fleeing felon, it prohibits it is certain cases. In this case the 2nd shooter *MAY* have believed the shooting to have been unprovoked (incorrect, but possibly reasonable)
and feared this armed person who had just fired shots at someone was going to return and do more harm.

That said I think the 2nd shooter has thin justification at best. I would love to see him charged with rioting. Was he in the street interfering with vehicular traffic too? Where was this guy in relation to the car, should he have seen Garrett raise his rifle? If so, he *should have known* the shooting was justified and his reasonableness goes away and he is committing agg assault....

e.g. if I am chasing an armed felony suspect I could use deadly force if I can articulate a reasonable belief this fleeing felon will cause death or SBI (fleeing towards an occupied school, or a crowd, weapon still in hand etc)

As you pointed out, you NEED to know the law and case law before you start playing with guns. You don't want to be looking up penal code to make sure it was a good shoot after the fact.

Linky linky:
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#9.31
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/PE/htm/PE.42.htm




Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

This seems like a reasonable breakdown. Like you said, it is possible the second shooter is justified in shooting in these circumstances based on belief at the time, even if the review of the situation in hindsight does not support those beliefs.

A lot of the justification (at least under the law) would depend on if the second shooter was committing a crime (or another crime) about the time of the shooting. TPC 9.31 and 9.32 (defense of self, defense of [another] person) both have requirements that the actor not be otherwise engaged in criminal activity except for a class c misdemeanor that's a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic.

If it does go to trial (which I doubt will happen), I'd be interested to see what other criminal activity would come into play. Pretty much every one of the first five(ish) sections of TPC 42 would apply to the "protestors", and they are all class B misdemeanors, so they could be counted as that criminal activity.

 

[jordanmills]

Linky linky references for the previous post (can't edit now):
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#9.31
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/PE/htm/PE.42.htm

 

[TxStetson]

Lol

I was never much of a fan, but that will be the last of his videos on any of my screens.