Jump to content
clapclapclap

Shooting at Austin protest tonight, 1 dead

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, irishtexan said:

 

 

 

It's always fun to watch someone so confident they are right, but be so wrong on multiple points. 

I owned that the guy was not a stop and replied as such.  It was hard to see on the iphone and I thought his lights were the car at the stop in the video.  

Not sure what other point you are referring to.  Pedestrians don't have the right of way in the middle of a street as was mentioned in the post I responded to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

In this context, that doesnt matter, because this: 

 

 

Next UT game, when you’re on one of the streets open to vehicle traffic and a crowd of people is walking in the street, I encourage you run them down and kill them, because they are in the wrong, you are in the right, and therefore you will not face a murder charge. 

You think that’s how it would go down?

Nice straw man argument.

Did the person in the video run anyone over?  Did the person attempt to run anyone over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Longhorn said:

I owned that the guy was not a stop and replied as such.  It was hard to see on the iphone and I thought his lights were the car at the stop in the video.  

Not sure what other point you are referring to.  Pedestrians don't have the right of way in the middle of a street as was mentioned in the post I responded to. 

You are correct. Pedestrians have the right of way in the middle of street, but that right of way is not absolute. You took issue with my previous comment. 

“Pedestrians have the right of way, so he’s in the wrong no matter what“

You pedantically wanted to prove that pedestrians have the right of way in the middle of the street. Great. My original post predicated on the assumption that everyone would agree you can’t legally drive into a crowd of pedestrians. Obviously I was wrong. Some people do believe that they are legally allowed to do that. 

In Texas, the driver has the duty of care and must avoid hitting pedestrians if a reasonable person can avoid hitting a pedestrian. There some instances where a reasonable driver is unable to do so such as if a pedestrian jumps out into the street from in between parked cars. However, in this instance, the pedestrians were illegal jaywalking slowly in the middle of the street. The driver ran a red light knowingly into a crowd of walking pedestrians. It doesn’t fucking matter if the pedestrians did not have the right of way to walk in the middle of the street, they did have the right of way to not be hit by a fucking car if the driver could reasonably not hit them 

jesus 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"Initial reports indicate the victim may have been carrying a rifle and approached the suspect's vehicle.  Suspect was in the vehicle and shot at the victim.  Suspect was detained and is cooperating with officers."

Seems like if the deceased had fired his AK47, police would have mentioned that when they noted that the driver fired.  Though maybe not.

361D08A1-4AFA-464E-B710-5B34151E01F9.jpeg

Looks like his left arm is down, so at this point he hadn't raised and aimed his weapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gonna wait and let all the conflicting reports gel into something closer to the facts of what actually happened.

 

Some interesting early observations:

 

I’ve suggested several times in the past that someone carrying an AR etc at a low ready during a tense situation is going to get his ass shot, and the shooter will have a decent justification argument. Remember, 2nd Am fanboys, this also goes for your hyper-enthusiastic gun rights guys who carry a rifle all over to protest at state houses and whatnot. Carrying a weapon for the purposes of intimidation/show - and let’s not kid ourselves, that’s exactly what this guy was doing and a shitload of others have done - is a recipe for tragedy.

 

Who had the right of way is irrelevant. Knowledge and intent to cause serious bodily harm are the relevant questions, and it seems rather obvious that the driver saw a crowd of people and decided to drive into them on purpose. He almost certainly committed a crime there. Now, whether it was because he was drunk, was impatient and angry, or was politically motivated, or something else....who knows.

 

Surrounding a car and threatening the driver, when it is already stopped, is not a smart move. It creates additional risk of confrontation.

 

The photo of the victim at the scene doesn’t appear to show him with a raised weapon. I see a hand near the trigger guard, but his other arm is down. Of course, that’s just one screen grab. He could have raised it a second later.

 

Summary: what we KNOW is still pretty thin. Some of what we know is bad news, but without all the pieces, it’s impossible to reach a final conclusion.

Yup. Shut it down. All of this.

Most likely final outcome is that all parties involved acted an ass. AK guy, drives into protests guy, and possibly the crowd.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing to note. Maybe we can’t assume they are different guns being heard shot. The first 4 shots are recorded close by. Then the cameraman runs away from the Incident which is why the later shots sound not as loud. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Gonna wait and let all the conflicting reports gel into something closer to the facts of what actually happened.

 

Some interesting early observations:

 

I’ve suggested several times in the past that someone carrying an AR etc at a low ready during a tense situation is going to get his ass shot, and the shooter will have a decent justification argument. Remember, 2nd Am fanboys, this also goes for your hyper-enthusiastic gun rights guys who carry a rifle all over to protest at state houses and whatnot. Carrying a weapon for the purposes of intimidation/show - and let’s not kid ourselves, that’s exactly what this guy was doing and a shitload of others have done - is a recipe for tragedy.

 

Who had the right of way is irrelevant. Knowledge and intent to cause serious bodily harm are the relevant questions, and it seems rather obvious that the driver saw a crowd of people and decided to drive into them on purpose. He almost certainly committed a crime there. Now, whether it was because he was drunk, was impatient and angry, or was politically motivated, or something else....who knows.

 

Surrounding a car and threatening the driver, when it is already stopped, is not a smart move. It creates additional risk of confrontation.

 

The photo of the victim at the scene doesn’t appear to show him with a raised weapon. I see a hand near the trigger guard, but his other arm is down. Of course, that’s just one screen grab. He could have raised it a second later.

 

Summary: what we KNOW is still pretty thin. Some of what we know is bad news, but without all the pieces, it’s impossible to reach a final conclusion.

Some other points of fact.

Protestor with AK spotted off some extremely incendiary stuff well prior and it is recorded.

In Texas your car is considered property and you have legal right to defend yourself while in it.

If Protestor brought the gun to full ready, or fired any sort of "warning" shots while not actually in fear for his life, legally car driver has every right in Texas to defend himself and his property.

In the one video I watched the sound certainly seems to be two different weapons. It certainly seems like the first report was a much heavier caliber.

I will note the person recording moved away from the actual incident during the recorded reports. He ended up in an alcove of a building entrance. Both of those will greatly modify recorded sound reports in accuracy/change.

The jibba jabba here on the driving, if he was stopped prior and during to the shooting is not relevant to the shooting other than perhaps mindset. Once the car is stopped and no longer moving it is no longer an active deadly threat. 

It will come down to a couple of very specific items.

1) Did protestor point gun at driver.

2) Did he discharge any rounds, whether warning or otherwise before the driver.

3) Did driver present arms prior to protestor firing.

4) Did driver discharge rounds prior to protestor, whether hitting protestor or not?

If one or two and not three or four..

Absolutely legal shooting all other jibba jabba aside.

If three and four exist it gets very muddy.

We don't know any other facts at this point and I am unwilling to speculate what I believe occured until I know many more details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

The perspective is also from two different locations so there's that factor to consider.

The speculation about the sounds of the volleys seems to ignore this point. The two volleys clearly sound very different, but a lot changes between the volleys. For the first shots, the cameraman is taking footage of the streets, and the mic seems to be unobstructed and generally pointed towards the action or at least not covered.

For the second group of shots, he’s hiding behind something with the mic pointed towards him and there’s even a reasonable change that the mic is obstructed or covered by part of his hand or clothing. Even without an obstruction, there’s lots of soft things for the sound to bounce off of and a big difference in mic placement. If you’ve ever watched a sound guy work, changing the placement can have dramatic results. 

Unless there’s other videos with sound that I missed, in which case, never mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fondren & Main said:

Hilarious take.  You’re going on ignore with DD and the other 🤡.

He's right. "Jaywalking justifies vehicular homicide" is quite possibly one of the stupidest takes ever posted on this site. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

The jibba jabba here on the driving, if he was stopped prior and during to the shooting is not relevant to the shooting other than perhaps mindset. Once the car is stopped and no longer moving it is no longer an active deadly threat. 

I disagree completely. A car with a running engine is absolutely a threat to a crowd of people, even when at a complete stop. Cars have engines, and can still harm from a standing stop. 

If the driver drove into a crowd of people, that is assault with a deadly weapon. And per Texas self defense laws defending yourself with deadly force is legal. Especially because the car is still a deadly weapon while running, and you're still actively at risk while it is and you're in it's vicinity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Xian said:

Victim’s Facebook page is completely open to the public if you want to get a read on his mindset.  I’m not going to link it, but it’s easy to find. 

While the deceased's work with the homeless was admirable, he allegedly posted this on his Facebook page (no longer accessible):

Ed1bIcHXYAA-d2h?format=jpg&name=900x900

Ed1bIcIWkAAWB30?format=jpg&name=small

I can't assume he approached the car as a peacemaker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

Seems like if the deceased had fired his AK47, police would have mentioned that when they noted that the driver fired.  Though maybe not.

361D08A1-4AFA-464E-B710-5B34151E01F9.jpeg

Looks like his left arm is down, so at this point he hadn't raised and aimed his weapon.

I keep seeing this photo spread around with the caption "the moment before the shooting". How does this exonerate the man in the photo? He's clearly behind the rear passenger door and we're made to believe that the driver turned around and shot this guy? The audio is even more confusing. If the driver shot first, who shot the return fire? The original gun shots are at 0:18 and the second round started at 0:25. Same person?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I disagree completely. A car with a running engine is absolutely a threat to a crowd of people, even when at a complete stop. Cars have engines, and can still harm from a standing stop. 

If the driver drove into a crowd of people, that is assault with a deadly weapon. And per Texas self defense laws defending yourself with deadly force is legal. Especially because the car is still a deadly weapon while running, and you're still actively at risk while it is and you're in it's vicinity. 

You are wrong legally otherwise at 6th Street intersections every Friday and Sat people could be shooting others.

He didn't hit anyone when he turned in. He sure as shit didn't hit the shooter. 

Net: You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HRSchenker said:

I keep seeing this photo spread around with the caption "the moment before the shooting". How does this exonerate the man in the photo? He's clearly behind the rear passenger door and we're made to believe that the driver turned around and shot this guy? The audio is even more confusing. If the driver shot first, who shot the return fire? The original gun shots are at 0:18 and the second round started at 0:25. Same person?

Maybe he curved the bullet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Let’s see if I can simplify this down for you. Do you agree or do you not agree that crowds of people walk down streets at UT football games that are not blocked off? Have no police traffic modification? Do you agree or not agree that is possible?

Its much safer now after games, people aren't as angry.  Personally, I stopped running people down after the Charlie years were over.

Edited by dcar00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dcar00 said:

Its much safer now after games.  Personally, I stopped running people down after the Charlie years were over.

I still shoot drivers that are in the busy tailgating areas after games as they are in running cars and threatening lives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

You are wrong legally otherwise at 6th Street intersections every Friday and Sat people could be shooting others.

He didn't hit anyone when he turned in. He sure as shit didn't hit the shooter. 

Net: You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

You don't have to harm someone for an act to be assault or not. The simple act of attempting it is what makes it assault. Legally speaking

And it's a false equivalency to compare a large crowd of people like in this case to one or one/two/several people jaywalking like in your 6th St example. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Blocking roadways is illegal. It still doesn’t give you permission to drive into pedestrians illegally blocking the roadway 

Good old fashioned muh rights fight?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Captainant said:

You don't have to harm someone for an act to be assault or not. The simple act of attempting it is what makes it assault. Legally speaking

And it's a false equivalency to compare a large crowd of people like in this case to one or one/two/several people jaywalking like in your 6th St example. 

You mean like anywhere around the capital immediately after a Longhorn game?

And lulz at one or two/several people jaywalking around 6th on a Friday or Sat night.

Shit, expand it to Chicago and all the shootings there every year make sense. It's pedestrians defending themselves from cars.

Comically terrible take.

We're done here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

You are wrong legally otherwise at 6th Street intersections every Friday and Sat people could be shooting others.

He didn't hit anyone when he turned in. He sure as shit didn't hit the shooter. 

Net: You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

you approach a stopped car with a gun, shit might happen.  shit did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice straw man argument.
Did the person in the video run anyone over?  Did the person attempt to run anyone over?

As to the first question, it doesn’t appear that he actually meaningfully hit anyone.
As to the second, it does appear that several people had to take serious evasive action to avoid being hit, so that is still an open question as to “attempt,” and it’s probably not even an open question as to “reckless, with clear disregard for human safety” - that seems to be the fact, at the very least. All
Of which are significant criminal violations.
It seems clear that the driver was not in the right here - again, people being in the street, clearly and visibly in front of you, does NOT give you the right to barrel right into the crowd, recklessly, intentionally, or otherwise.

When it comes to this specific violent confrontation, the driver started the confrontation. As to what happened after, and whether any conduct by any party (shooter, victim, crowd) was justified, is a wide open question. Both things appear to be true at this point - the driver started something violent, but we don’t know who was in the right when it came to the final confrontation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My rampant speculation is the dipshit in the car realized he was in trouble, and fired off the first five rounds into the air.  Then dipshit #2 with the AK came toward the car, dipshit #1 panicked and shot him 3 times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Herpa Derpa said:

Maybe he curved the bullet.

Holy crap, Lance McCullers, Jr from the grassy knoll would explain a few things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

My rampant speculation is the dipshit in the car realized he was in trouble, and fired off the first five rounds into the air.  Then dipshit #2 with the AK came toward the car, dipshit #1 panicked and shot him 3 times.

In that case I'm not sure why he'd fire a gun and not just motor through folks.

It's what dcar00 would do. Course Idda shot him first were he to drive near me. 

I shot 88 cars while living in Chicago. I'm white so CPD gave me a pass.

Edit - I'd like to note your are absolutely point on about one thing and 100% accurate. Both parties in this engagement/incident are complete dipshits.

Edited by BurntEyes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

My rampant speculation is the dipshit in the car realized he was in trouble, and fired off the first five rounds into the air.  Then dipshit #2 with the AK came toward the car, dipshit #1 panicked and shot him 3 times.

Idk, it really sounded like different firearms shooting between the first and second groups of shots. But who knows, shooting up in the air in an area surrounded by buildings could produce a different echo from shooting horizontally. 

I still think it's two different guns shooting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I’ve suggested several times in the past that someone carrying an AR etc at a low ready during a tense situation is going to get his ass shot, and the shooter will have a decent justification argument. Remember, 2nd Am fanboys, this also goes for your hyper-enthusiastic gun rights guys who carry a rifle all over to protest at state houses and whatnot. Carrying a weapon for the purposes of intimidation/show - and let’s not kid ourselves, that’s exactly what this guy was doing and a shitload of others have done - is a recipe for tragedy.

I'm actually surprised more of these gun nut retards don't get blasted parading around these protests like D-list Rambo wannabes. I'll never celebrate when anybody loses their life, but I'm not particularly distraught either.  In the interview posted earlier, he is asked why is he carrying that night. His response "they don't let us march in the streets anymore, so I gotta practice some of our rights". Nevermind that at that exact moment, he is in fact currently being allowed to march in the streets. What was he expecting heading out yesterday? Did he think the revolution was finally going to break out in Austin, and he should be at the ready to lead the way against tryanny? If so, he is too fucking stupid to own a gun.   

Edited by Blotto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's more likely than not that the shooter was one firing a weapon and not the victim. It's a crowded street downtown on a Saturday night yet we haven't heard one eyewitness account to my knowledge say that Garrett Walker did anything but approach the vehicle. APD isn't exactly on the side of the BLM protesters. I think it's reasonable to jump to the conclusion that, if he'd fired his weapon, we'd know it because APD would have every motivation to report as much publicly. This is probably a more complicated case of determining what the shooter thought and how he acted and whether his actions warrant arrest for murder. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

I think it's more likely than not that the shooter was one firing a weapon and not the victim. It's a crowded street downtown on a Saturday night yet we haven't heard one eyewitness account to my knowledge say that Garrett Walker did anything but approach the vehicle. APD isn't exactly on the side of the BLM protesters. I think it's reasonable to jump to the conclusion that, if he'd fired his weapon, we'd know it because APD would have every motivation to report as much publicly. This is probably a more complicated case of determining what the shooter thought and how he acted and whether his actions warrant arrest for murder. 

 

 

Heheh.. really? 

Did you watch the interview with the deceased?

Dumb ass was spoiling for a chance to fire his weapon.

That's abundantly clear in the interview.

Again, I won't speculate as to what happened but to assume dipshit #1 didn't fire his weapon is a very illogical leap based on what we all know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:


As to the first question, it doesn’t appear that he actually meaningfully hit anyone.
As to the second, it does appear that several people had to take serious evasive action to avoid being hit, so that is still an open question as to “attempt,” and it’s probably not even an open question as to “reckless, with clear disregard for human safety” - that seems to be the fact, at the very least. All
Of which are significant criminal violations.
It seems clear that the driver was not in the right here - again, people being in the street, clearly and visibly in front of you, does NOT give you the right to barrel right into the crowd, recklessly, intentionally, or otherwise.

When it comes to this specific violent confrontation, the driver started the confrontation. As to what happened after, and whether any conduct by any party (shooter, victim, crowd) was justified, is a wide open question. Both things appear to be true at this point - the driver started something violent, but we don’t know who was in the right when it came to the final confrontation.

IMO, he doesn't barrel into a crowd. I have only seen the one video but based on that one it doesnt appear to be several people taking serious evasive action.  maybe 1 or 2 move because they see the car turning into the street.  he sees an opening to take the turn. he doesn't do it slowly, he does accelerate some.   some may be taking action due to them seeing a car coming towards them that they are not expecting(while walking in the street) but they may have not been in  immediate danger.  how fast is the guy in the car going?  I do realize that pedestrians have right of way when turning right on red.

the real problem is there is no authoritative control here at all and we shouldn't be allowing protesters to be walking down streets without police control, especially at night.  

that said they could find that the driver was in the wrong or they could find he was KKK with bad intentions.  what we do know is the guy drove into an area where people were walking in the street(maybe illegally) and people surrounded his car and another guy approached his car with a gun and the guy in the car had a gun as well, shots were fired and the guy who approached the car ended up dead.

I do know that I have told my 2 kids(HS graduate and college kid) not to go anywhere near downtown(South of MLK) since this all started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BurntEyes said:

Heheh.. really? 

Did you watch the interview with the deceased?

Dumb ass was spoiling for a chance to fire his weapon.

That's abundantly clear in the interview.

Again, I won't speculate as to what happened but to assume dipshit #1 didn't fire his weapon is a very illogical leap based on what we all know.

Then where's the evidence that he did? Where's the eyewitness reporting as much? Or do you think the multiple eyewitness accounts are lying? 

A short clip of a guy talking about why he's open carrying isn't evidence of anything except why he chose to carry. I don't agree with it at all and think it's inconsistent with perspective of many of us who believe in the movement, but it is legal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

they could find he was KKK with bad intentions. 

They could find he was black and saw a masked white guy with an AK coming at him. 

My first assumption of some cracker with an AK is he's not protesting on behalf of BLM. 

Edited by Deej

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Deej said:

They could find he was black and saw a marsked white guy with an AK coming at him. 

My first assumption of some cracker with an AK is he's not protesting BLM. 

He is not black, he's a white male by the eyewitness accounts who saw him extend his arm out of the window to fire his weapon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Heheh.. really? 

Did you watch the interview with the deceased?

Dumb ass was spoiling for a chance to fire his weapon.

That's abundantly clear in the interview.

Again, I won't speculate as to what happened but to assume dipshit #1 didn't fire his weapon is a very illogical leap based on what we all know.

[Speculates a bunch]

"But I won't speculate"

dr steve brule k GIF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, clapclapclap said:

Seems like if the deceased had fired his AK47, police would have mentioned that when they noted that the driver fired.  Though maybe not.

361D08A1-4AFA-464E-B710-5B34151E01F9.jpeg

Looks like his left arm is down, so at this point he hadn't raised and aimed his weapon.

Quite possibly.   But you can fairly easily raise an AK47 with one arm when you have a strap on it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most 1st Amendment displays are done in groups with other like minded protestors, and they are usually accompanied with signs stating their protest concerns.

One guy walking around with an AK variant and melting in with unarmed protestors looks a bit different. Will be interesting to hear a bit more about the driver and why he was driving around such a hot spot with a weapon at the ready. Was he a licensed carrier and etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Deej said:

They could find he was black and saw a marsked white guy with an AK coming at him. 

My first assumption of some cracker with an AK is he's not protesting on behalf of BLM. 

agreed.  there was a ton of assumin' goin' on in this incident.  and you know what happens when idiots go assumin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Quite possibly.   But you can fairly easily raise an AK47 with one arm when you have a strap on it.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Texas_Rocks said:

Most 1st Amendment displays are done in groups with other like minded protestors, and they are usually accompanied with signs stating their protest concerns.

One guy walking around with an AK variant and melting in with unarmed protestors looks a bit different. Will be interesting to hear a bit more about the driver and why he was driving around such a hot spot with a weapon at the ready. Was he a licensed carrier and etc.

You do not have to be licensed to travel with a firearm in a vehicle.

And not having it "at the ready" sort of defeats the purpose.

And the insinuation that downtown Austin is a "hotspot" is asinine.  People live downtown.  They work downtown.  And there are businesses open to visit downtown.

Edited by Somnio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Captainant said:

You don't have to harm someone for an act to be assault or not. The simple act of attempting it is what makes it assault. Legally speaking

And it's a false equivalency to compare a large crowd of people like in this case to one or one/two/several people jaywalking like in your 6th St example. 

We’re you the driver?   How do you know it was his intent to hit someone with his vehicle?  As someone said earlier, dude could’ve been not paying attention to both directions when he turned.  Didn’t look right and went that way right into a crowd of people.   It’s as feasible as outright saying that he committed assault because of his “intent”.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

Looks like Garrett found the trouble he was looking for.

this is my bottom line. it is a point i try to drive home to my sons. if you go looking for trouble, you probably will not find it before it finds you. tragic that he was shot and no defense of the shooter/ guy who apparently drove into a crowd, but he went looking for trouble and it found him. sad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Texas_Rocks said:

Most 1st Amendment displays are done in groups with other like minded protestors, and they are usually accompanied with signs stating their protest concerns.

One guy walking around with an AK variant and melting in with unarmed protestors looks a bit different. Will be interesting to hear a bit more about the driver and why he was driving around such a hot spot with a weapon at the ready. Was he a licensed carrier and etc.

I'm betting both were licensed. big question is did AK guy fire and did he fire first, regardless of which direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


As to the first question, it doesn’t appear that he actually meaningfully hit anyone.
As to the second, it does appear that several people had to take serious evasive action to avoid being hit, so that is still an open question as to “attempt,” and it’s probably not even an open question as to “reckless, with clear disregard for human safety” - that seems to be the fact, at the very least. All
Of which are significant criminal violations.
It seems clear that the driver was not in the right here - again, people being in the street, clearly and visibly in front of you, does NOT give you the right to barrel right into the crowd, recklessly, intentionally, or otherwise.

When it comes to this specific violent confrontation, the driver started the confrontation. As to what happened after, and whether any conduct by any party (shooter, victim, crowd) was justified, is a wide open question. Both things appear to be true at this point - the driver started something violent, but we don’t know who was in the right when it came to the final confrontation.

Driver started a traffic violation, not a violent act based on facts reported. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Regardless of where the mic is in that video, those shots sound very different. I'm willing to bet it isn't the same gun - not only is the 2nd barrage quieter it has a very different tone. I'm not sure how much the position would matter downtown since the sound is going to bounce off of everything regardless.

I also trust whoever said it was unmistakably an AK on the first 5. I don't know why you would comment that unless you've been around enough AK shots to know for certain.

 

Edited by ztejas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Trey3216 said:

We’re you the driver?   How do you know it was his intent to hit someone with his vehicle?  As someone said earlier, dude could’ve been not paying attention to both directions when he turned.  Didn’t look right and went that way right into a crowd of people.   It’s as feasible as outright saying that he committed assault because of his “intent”.  

Sure, but if you're a protester who is aware of the increasing trend of cars plowing into BLM protesters, it's not unreasonable for that person to respond with deadly force right? But regardless, the driver is the one operating the multi ton vehicle, not the protester, and a reasonably cautious driver would have easily noticed the large crowd. 

I don't understand this jumping away from who instigated the encounter in the first place. But for the driver driving into a crowd, the victim would not be dead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, clapclapclap said:

Looks like his left arm is down, so at this point he hadn't raised and aimed his weapon.

Great point. This man was speaking ever so softly and being level headed whilst merely clutching his AK-47. No reason for any concern.

Thousands of peaceful conversations have occurred while holding a high capacity Russian assault rifle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Sure, but if you're a protester who is aware of the increasing trend of cars plowing into BLM protesters, it's not unreasonable for that person to respond with deadly force right? But regardless, the driver is the one operating the multi ton vehicle, not the protester, and a reasonably cautious driver would have easily noticed the large crowd. 

I don't understand this jumping away from who instigated the encounter in the first place. But for the driver driving into a crowd, the victim would not be dead. 

And we have seen a driver be shot while his car was mobbed in Utah. 
 

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/6/30/21308526/gunman-shot-driver-then-hid-weapon-continued-protest-provo-police-say-blm

And in Colorado (driver not hit)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/denver.cbslocal.com/2020/07/25/protesters-block-interstate-225-injured-car-drives-through-crowd/amp/

 

shit will get out of hand

Edited by ChickenSandwich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...