Armed Protester Shot After Confronting Driver

This is going to happen more and more if the protesters and rioters continue their tactics. People are getting fed up.

The moment leading up to the fatal shooting of an armed Black Lives Matter protester in Texas over the weekend has been revealed in a newly surfaced photograph, hours after the suspect was released from custody having told investigators he shot the demonstrator in self-defense.

Garrett Foster, 28, was shot dead in Austin on Saturday evening after he confronted the driver of a car who had driven his vehicle toward a hundred-strong crowd of protesters marching in the city center.

Foster, who was carrying an AK-47, was shot three times by the driver who then fled the scene. The motorist later told police he fired his handgun at Foster after the activist pointed his assault rifle at his car.

A photograph circulating on social media on Monday shows Foster standing at the driver’s window moments before the fatal shots rang out. The barrel of his AK-47 appears to be pointing towards the floor, however he is leaning towards the car with right arm raised and his hand seemingly placed around the weapon’s grip.

Police, who declined to identify the driver, released the man as they continue their investigation.

‘We are heartbroken over the loss of Mr. Foster last night,’ Austin Police Chief Brain Manley told reporters Sunday. ‘It is actively being investigated and ongoing in conjunction with the Travis County district attorney’s office.’

Officers also brought in a second gunman who shot at the car as it sped off. Both of the suspects’ have a license to carry and both of their guns were seized for evidence, Manly said.

48 Responses to Armed Protester Shot After Confronting Driver

  1. Mar says:

    I wonder how soon jjf will criticize an Antifa thug for improper use of a weapon?

  2. Jason says:

    Is this the one that all the headlines ran breathlessly for days with “Protester pushing quadriplegic wife in wheelchair shot dead by man in car.”   I wonder if the shooter will get a pay day like Nick Sandmann?  Remember that jjf and Leroy?  You both instantly condemned that kid without any source other than your disgraced liberal rags that are paying undisclosed sums of money to the teen they assaulted.

  3. Kevin Scheunemann says:

    This will be a good message for thugs walking to cars with weapons like car jackets.

    I support shooting of these kind of menacing thugs.

  4. jjf says:

    So he McCloskey’d someone, and they shot him?

  5. Jason says:

    >So he McCloskey’d someone, and they shot him?

    Back to your biased hate attacks.  Just like you did on poor Nick Sandmann.  I figured you ate enough crow on that to learn, but I guess not John J Foust.

  6. Mar says:

    jjf, the pot is getting bigger.
    Still no intelligent post.
    I think the over/under for you to post an intelligent post is about 500. 1 intelligent post in 500 posts.
    I dont know. It’s going to be tough for you to do.

  7. Tuerqas says:

    Where is all the liberal hoopla about gun carriers?  Where is all the horror that there was an AK-47 assault rifle present and that it was like the wild west with everyone pulling out there guns and firing when a third person opened fire on the fleeing car?

    Could it be because the AK-47 was in the hands of a protester and the wild west act was pulled by another gun-toting liberal/protester?

    An AK-47 to a peaceful protest?  Liberals and their little oxymorons…

  8. jjf says:

    Which way do you want it, Tuerqas?  Guns keep the peace or guns fuel the fire?

    Here’s my prediction:  The more guns at these events, the more this sort of thing will happen.

  9. dad29 says:

    And in Colorado, a Mostly Peaceful protester shot at a car which drove on an Interstate through an area which Mostly Peaceful Protesters had attempted to blockade.

    Sadly, the Mostly Peaceful gunslinger didn’t know how to ‘lead’ when firing at the Jeep, and he ventilated a few other Mostly Peaceful Demonstrators on the other side of the road.

    Jiffy is right.  If the Mostly Peaceful Protesters would leave their guns at home, there will be less Mostly Peaceful Victims.  That’s because the Mostly Peaceful protesters don’t know how to fire a friggin’ gun.

  10. Jason says:

    >The more guns at these events, the more this sort of thing will happen.

     

    How about you stop bullshitting yourself and spraying us with the extra.  We are not talking about events… we are talking about riots.

     

  11. Mike says:

    Self defense cannot be legally claimed when someone is committing a crime. Blocking roads and hemming people in by a violent crowd breaks several laws.

    A violent crowd trespassing and threatening people is breaking the law and loses the ability to claim self defense. They would be in the wrong, not the homeowners threatened by the rioters.

    The rioters have been in the wrong right down the line.

  12. jjf says:

    That’s because the Mostly Peaceful protesters don’t know how to fire a friggin’ gun.

    You know, like the McCloskeys.

  13. Randall Flagg says:

    For no reason at all, I’d like to remind everyone of the time waaaay back four years ago when a group of heavily armed white men occupied a federal building for 40 days, didn’t get shot with rubber bullets or tear gassed, and were allowed care packages.”

    Patrick Tomlinson

  14. Mar says:

    And yet, Randall, 1 gentleman was shot in the back.

  15. Tuerqas says:

    Which way do you want it, Tuerqas?  Guns keep the peace or guns fuel the fire?

    Stupid question.  As any idiot should know, they can always be used wisely for the former result and misused for the latter.  Any tool that gives power, especially one that can be used to hurt others can be used wisely or unwisely.

    I’m just saying, you are the one defending the ‘mostly peaceful protesters’ almost no matter what they do.  I have always been pro-constitution, which must be by definition pro-gun.  I don’t own one or want one, but I want them legal for the people of this country.  Liberals are the ones who want gun control laws and they generally go ape-sh*t when assault rifles get involved.  Here is an obviously non-peaceful protester threatening someone trying to drive down a road in a vehicle…you know, what the roads were built for, with an AK-47.  No outrage?  No being in the wrong just for carrying an AK-47 in a potential fire-keg?  Huh, seems just a tiny bit inconsistent.

  16. jjf says:

    I think it’s just a tiny bit over the top when someone thinks they need to carry their AR into the courthouse when they claim they’re there to petition their legislator.

    Same for any other public assembly.  It’s over the top.  Unnecessary.  Purposefully bullying and provocative.  Not constructive.  It’s a threat that generally has nothing to do with whatever communicative civil message.

    And that’s why they’ve sold millions of ARs.  They’re made and marketed to look scary and military.  Same for all the camo on the Fed agents/goons.  They dressed that way to look scary and military.  They didn’t dress them in blue like Officer Friendly.  The guns aren’t there to protect.  They’re there to threaten.  Guns can do that, too.

    And you can threaten a crowd with a vehicle, too.  That’s happened again and again, too.  It’s a hilarious meme among the righties!  Run ’em down!

    And the lefties tend not to think it’s not sane to bring the guns to the otherwise chalk-and-placard-and-chant battle.  And the ‘Merica crowd tends to think they need to do it.

    Now some of the lefties are doing it…  and now you’ve got guns in the hands of the excited and over-amped.  Not going to turn out well, no matter how you slice it.  It’s all escalation.

    Unless of course you’re a politician who wants to say only they can save you from the angry mobs!

    Yeah, I’ll defend anyone’s right to peacefully assemble.  Where have I heard that phrase before?  Especially when that’s what the majority are doing.

    There’s always going to be an a**hole in every bunch.  Do you think civilization is better served when they’re armed?

    The Constitution has changed many times.  It won’t surprise me if the Second changes.

  17. dad29 says:

    ARs [  are  ] made and marketed to look scary and military.

    Wait!!  Don’t they have shoulder-things that go up??  High-ammo clips?  HIgh magazine rounds??  Double-barrel extended magazine clips or red-hot magazines?

    Generally speaking, military weapons are made to kill people.

    Looks don’t really figure into the equation, Jiffy.

  18. Randall Flagg says:

    And yet, Randall, 1 gentleman was shot in the back.

    Not in the building Mar.  And, he reached for a loaded weapon and asked police to shoot him.

  19. Mar says:

    Wow, Randall and you were there??? And you heard that?
    Darn, you are good.
    And that was why he was running away, I guess.

  20. jjf says:

    Dad29, explain all the tacti-cool, then.  You don’t do all that stuff?

  21. dad29 says:

    First, YOU explain how they are ‘made to look scary.’  That will be interesting to Mr. Kalashnikov, I’m sure.

  22. jjf says:

    Sure, we can just change “respect the blue” to “respect the tan, dark green and khaki.”  Sure, we can just incorporate Border Patrol agents under the guards who used to walk the halls of Federal buildings, and therefore it’s OK!  And we can skirt all the loopholes we can find in the Fourth.

    What, you didn’t see the little camo “POLICE” patch velcro’d among the rest of the camo on that dark street?  That’s how you know you’re not just being kidnapped by the Proud Boys.

    This gun, it’s magic!  One minute it’s scary enough to frighten away the criminal, the next it’s perfectly safe for use against the Wall of Moms!

  23. dad29 says:

    I can smell the maryjane smoke from here…….

  24. jjf says:

    Dad29 pretends there’s no such thing as military gear made for field combat and that AR marketing doesn’t want to make the guns look “tacti-cool.”

  25. Merlin says:

    The thugs hiding behind Wall of Moms! need a new publicist. That imagery isn’t being received quite the way they intended. Hiding behind grandmas in aprons or preschoolers with backpacks probably wouldn’t be a good look either.

  26. jjf says:

    Merlin, you see more interested in conflating the vast crowd of peaceful protesters with the exceedingly small number who are destroying property.  Why is that?  Like Trump, do you want it to be all about the Thug Life?

  27. MjM says:

    Wizard says:  hiding behind Wall of Moms!

    And grandmas!

     

  28. Tuerqas says:

    So you are willing to condemn the protester carrying the AK-47 a tiny bit?  It seems like you are willing to to go a lot further when it’s any gun in the non-liberal pool, but I guess it’s something.

  29. Mar says:

    I don’t know Dad, from here it smells like meth.

  30. Mar says:

    Still no coherent posts from jjf.
    How sad.

  31. Merlin says:

    Hard to paint hiding behind mama’s skirt any other way, dude.

  32. jjf says:

    Whew, look at all the sexism here, and it’s not even Dad29 on a Sunday!

  33. dad29 says:

    Jiffy the Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaycis’ discriminates against black rifles.

    Toke, Toke, Toke.

  34. jjf says:

    Surely this damns all Democrats and protesters.

  35. Tuerqas says:

    Merlin, you see more interested in conflating the vast crowd of peaceful protesters with the exceedingly small number who are destroying property.  Why is that?  Like Trump, do you want it to be all about the Thug Life?

    No, what I think we want is for the ‘peaceful protesters’ to turn in those very few bad apples who they are surely not in the least involved or complicit with.  I wonder why it has not once happened.  I mean, those bad apples are utterly defeating the purpose of the rallies.  No one who feels endangered or has businesses in the affected areas is going to embrace these ‘peaceful demonstrations’.

    Heh, peaceful demonstrations… demonstrating peace.  Yep, defeats the whole purpose.  Unless of course, the purpose is to keep them in the news until the elections.  Then you need some spice (read injuries, death, destruction…you know, something newsworthy) in those peace marches.

  36. Merlin says:

    Lefty cannibalism on display as Portland’s Wall of Moms! appears to be having considerable friction within its ranks. Apparently not all liberal moms are created equal. Some are just too White. Go home, Karen. You’re casting a shadow.

  37. dad29 says:

    Yah, well, some of those shadows could cause nightfall over a whole car or two.

  38. jjf says:

    Why, it only seems like 2014 when Feds were harassing peaceful protesters.

  39. Mar says:

    Since jjf is so concerned about the McCloskeys, I wonder what he thinks of a Black liberal, husband of the very liberal DA of LA county, being arrested for pointing a gun at BLM protestors.
    And yes, the guy should not have been charge. You show up on my porch, uninvited at 5 in the morning and refuse to leave, you will be threatened with violence.

  40. jjf says:

    Oh noes!  Mar has caught the Denounce-a-virus From DQ!

  41. Mar says:

    Reading comprehension not doing so well, jjf?
    I just asked your opinion.

  42. Randall Flagg says:

    No, what I think we want is for the ‘peaceful protesters’ to turn in those very few bad apples who they are surely not in the least involved or complicit with. 

    If cops had turned in and disciplined/fired their fellow “bad apple” officers we may not have had these protests.

  43. Randall Flagg says:

    You show up on my porch, uninvited at 5 in the morning and refuse to leave, you will be threatened with violence.

    Yup, but the McCLosky’s were not defending their own property.  It is property they have sued to say is theirs, but legally it is not.

    The McCloskeys have filed at least two “quiet title” suits asserting squatter’s rights on land they’ve occupied openly and hostilely — their terms — and claimed as their own. In an ongoing suit against Portland Place trustees in 2017, the McCloskeys say they are entitled to a 1,143-square-foot triangle of lawn in front of property that is set aside as common ground in the neighborhood’s indenture.

    It was that patch of green protesters saw when they filed through the gate. Mark McCloskey said in an affidavit that he has defended the patch before by pointing a gun at a neighbor who had tried to cut through it.

    https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/portland-place-couple-who-confronted-protesters-have-a-long-history-of-not-backing-down/article_281d9989-373e-53c3-abcb-ecd0225dd287.html

     

  44. Mar says:

    You mean, the gate the violent protestors broke down and were trespassing on private property, Randall?

  45. jjf says:

    Mar, you didn’t provide a link…  looks like someone was immediately charged.  What’s your point?  Denounce-a-virus got you down?

  46. Mar says:

    gee, jjf, you drinking the Biden water and getting more senile?
    All I want is your opinion. Did i ask you to denounce him?
    And no, it was not immediately charged.
    And here is the link: https://www.dailynews.com/2020/08/04/da-jackie-laceys-husband-charged-after-allegedly-pointing-gun-at-blm-protesters/
    And here I thought you knew how to use Google.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.