BLM Activist shoots an AK 47 5 x at a Car! Driver shoots back and kills him!
- Thread starter SIXERS24
- Start date
Sorry I came in after you. That was my point that RileyHawk is ignoring.
We don't. We do know what happened and it would not have for certain if the driver did not have a gun.
I bet he's glad he had his gun so he didn't have to find out.
We do know that 2 men each had a gun, One man made a poor choice and is dead. The other is alive. It was the poor choice that got him killed, not the gun.
It may very well be that two men made poor choices. And those choices likely started with bringing a gun.
I would look at the outcome and find it hard to say that the man that is alive and well made a poor choice. His choice to bring a gun, may very well be the only reason he is alive.
Nope. One man made a bad decision. That’s the real life fact that we know.
Again, you are assuming his life was actually in danger and the only way out was to shoot the victim. We don't know that though. So given that, it stands that he may have made a very poor choice. He killed a man, for goodness sake.
And, again, if neither have a gun this tragedy doesn't happen. A point you are trying to ignore.
We don't know the driver was justified. And even if he was, if he or the victim didn't have a gun, none of this happens.
You don't know that. At all. We do know that the decision by both of them to bring a gun resulted in the shooting. That's the bigger picture.
Actually we do. One man is alive and based on what we know the other made a fatal move.
Any reasonable person would believe his life was in danger when the protester was point an AK 47 at him.
The problem with your logic, is that we can't make choices for other people, we can only make them for our self. With the violent protest going on, clearly it was the right decision to carry a firearm for self protection.
Yep.
Doesn’t make sense.
No bad judgement/moves on Mr Foster’s part yields no deaths. Had Mr. Foster not pointed his firearm at someone, as reported, Mr Foster would be alive.
At this point this cuts against Mr Foster and his fateful choices.
No. That's not clear at all. If he pointed the gun at him (which is not yet a fact) he still had the choice not to shoot at the person. Just like the lady in St. Louis, she pointed a gun at others but they chose not to shoot her. Would they have been justified in doing so? Perhaps. But few had guns so they couldn't and any who did chose not to shoot her, avoiding the tragedy.
There is a chance the victim would have shot the driver if he hadn't shot first, but that chance is very low. Again, if neither has a gun, no one gets shot. You seem to be conveniently forgetting that fact.
I'm not surprised that it doesn't make sense. I'll try to dumb it down for you. The driver made a fatal decision - the fatality was someone else. The victim also made a fatal decision in bringing a gun.
How can you realistically say there is only a "very low chance" of the victim shooting the driver? You don't know that either.
No, they were breaking the law by being there. Just as these protesters were breaking the law by blocking traffic.
You have absolutely no idea what his intent was, but the fact that he was pointing a loaded gun at the window would be a pretty good indicator that he was going to shoot him. Really bad decision there.
Perhaps you could make it less dumb, but I know you’re not a miracle worker
The victim was the driver. He made a decision to defend himself. The suspect made a a fatal decision to bring a gun and a fatal move to point the work end of his weapon at Mr Perry. Mr Perry appears to have been well trained and competent.
Given the fact that he had been at a number of protests before and not shot anyone. But you're right, I don't know. That's just speculation. What's not speculation is if he didn't have a gun he wouldn't have been able to shoot him or even threaten to shoot him.
If he did, it certainly gives the driver more justification. If neither had a gun, no death.
Or not. You don't know. We do know that without a gun, neither gets shot. You, and others, don't want to acknowledge that, but that's the foundation of the issue.
There’s a chance raptu
You aren’t making any ground. Mr Foster brought a legal gun to a protest. That was his first mistake made clear later. Then Mr Foster, as reported, pointed his firearm in a rude and threatening manner at another person who was armed. That was Mr Foster’s second mistake.
You aren’t making any ground. Mr Foster brought a legal gun to a protest. That was his first mistake made clear later. Then Mr Foster, as reported, pointed his firearm in a rude and threatening manner at another person who was armed. That was Mr Foster’s second mistake.
My position has always supported removing carrying firearms in public.
Had Mr. Foster not pointed the firearm at Mr Perry Mr Foster would be alive.
No. Just take away bringing a gun. That's it. The poor decision to run a red light and drive into a group of protesters wouldn't matter. Going up to confront someone in their car wouldn't matter. No gin, no one gets shot.
You don't know that. It may very well turn out that he didn't point the gun at him and was shot anyway. Or, if he did point it at the driver, if he hadn't he may have been shot anyway. You don't know.
Using your words then...you can spin this all you want. Neither being armed maybe Mr Foster might have been run over by the driver. One can never know all possibilities. Good lord.
If the protestors hadn't been blocking traffic, there would be no protestors to drive through, and no one would have died. Or did I do this wrong.
Why does this thread title keep saying "shoots an AK 47 5 times at a car?". Wasn't that pretty much found to be false? He was carrying a gun, yes, but shooting?
You dont know that either. The rioters were blocking his car and pounding on it. They may have yanked him out of his car and beaten him to death.
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/07/31/daniel-perry-austin-protest-garrett-foster/
Didn't see this article posted. This story still sounds off to me. Why did he wait to pull into the crowd with what I assume to be a weapon laying on his lap ready to shoot? I still think Perry was looking for a confrontation.
Didn't see this article posted. This story still sounds off to me. Why did he wait to pull into the crowd with what I assume to be a weapon laying on his lap ready to shoot? I still think Perry was looking for a confrontation.
