Subject can get heated enough without people flamebaiting. Let's all please try to simmer down a notch. Thanks.

Your ignorance remains fetching. All evidence points to him never having raised his weapon. He was well known for safely open carrying at protests for a while. Meanwhile his murderer had an issue with the protesters and went down there with his car and gun, drove into them and murdered someone.

I have already clearly stated I don’t support open carry at all, it is ridiculous. BUT if you are going to legally use a firearm in Texas you need to understand open carry and how it works.

No matter how many times you try to act like the driver saw the rifle as a threat you will be wrong. That is not how it works. I am ashamed in myself in arguing this with you because you are so ridiculously ignorant and uninformed.

They guy went their because he wanted a fight. He went there inside his car and with a gun because he is a huge coward (former police officer so this is not wholly surprising) and then he murdered a guy.

Care to here my opinions about how violence in Ireland works?

TEN YEARS! TEN YEARS! TEN YEARS!

feel free to elaborate on some of them.

i'll get you started. someone walking in the street (not on their property) shoots and kills that st louis couple that was pointing an assault rifle at them aggressively. self defense or no?

someone peacefully protesting gets shot in the head with a rubber bullet and shoots and kills the police officer that fired it. self defense or no?

because both of those would be far easier cases of black and white open carry self defense than the aggressor in a vehicle specifically driving into a protest to agitate and than shooting someone that was there open carrying that from what i have seen didnt raise and point his weapon at the guy in the car.

First one would be self defense, second one no.

You were asked two questions-
1 The law was then explained to you re weapons "calculated to cause alarm"

My second question was did you reckon the driver had cause to feel alarmed?

Rather than answer you went back and edited to include what you felt was an explanation, which wasn't, via quoting an article, to make it look like you counterpointed all along and I was merely repeating my question. (Even though your linked piece didn't actually address my points.)
Like I said, sneaky and it makes you look even more pathetic than you usually look.

No it doesn't, conflicting and potentially false accounts are not evidence.

And the driver should have known this? Think before you post.

Murderer is a legal term, he hasn't even been arrested, never mind tried and convicted of murder, there you go engaging in shrill emotive hyperbole again.

Except he didn't drive into them. If he had have there would be injuries. You're taking some probable antifa member at his word which is belied by the actual evidence. In footage you clearly see a crowd running toward the car soon as the horn is honked-as in crowd standing in the middle of the street, blocking motorists.

All you're doing is blathering empty waffle. Honking a horn can make protesters feel threatened but approaching a car with an assault rifle shouldn't make a driver feel threatened, lol.

Except it is a threat and you don't know where Foster had his assault rifle pointed and even if pointed at the ground, any driver in that position would feel threatened.

You don't know he wanted a fight and you don't understand the term "murder".

Sure, shoot. Oops, sorry.

if it was a black protester accosted by a right wing extremist or approached by a standard "dont tread on me" Republican then he would already be arrested. likewise certainly if he was a black "gangbanger" type. and even if he was a socalled champagne marxist from the local university. and still the same if he was a hardened direct action socialist.

the right, ie conservatives and republicans (and obv the right wing death squads that are the police dont even need mention) are afforded the right to shoot and kill these types.

I posted this up thread but I read on CNN that the head of the Austin police union has already made a public statement to the effect that he 'asked for it'.

This is a clear signal that the police aren't going to go after the shooter because they didn't like the politics of Foster.

Defund.

You're allowed to use deadly force to protect the lives of innocents.
So the second one is also a valid shoot.

Grant that you'll have a harder case to prove but in theory they're both justifiable. Or at least potentially so.

The fact that some fringe citizens don't see shooting protestors in the head as problematic is why the protests aren't going to stop any time soon.

For the record, I favor defunding the police in RFlushDiamond's neighborhood.

He'd be the loudest to wail if that happened.

Right wing death squads. I had no idea contemporary America suddenly turned into El Salvador circa 1980s, thanks for the heads up. I'm learning more and more about AmeriKKKa every day.

it wasn't sudden

"those that work forces are the same that burn crosses" -1992

I live in the burbs. We have way too many cops that make way too much for what they do.

I'm not afraid of severe rifs even though we all know it will never happen.

The biggest fear people have in my town is people from the town over will drive through. lulz.

Besides, I was talking about Austin where the police are publicly saying a man who was murdered deserved it.
That wasn't my town. Are you okay with that attitude by leos ?

For sure if this was some 3 percentard open carry march and one of those bozos got blasted it'd be a lot different reaction from certain news outlets.

Also I don't think anyone on the left would gaf and it'd probably be almost an exact reversal of arguments.

https://law****lark.edu/live/files/2...cle2johnsonpdf

"There is an epidemic of white supremacists in police departments."

"Although the F.B.I. warned of white supremacists infiltrating police departments in 2006, the denial of the problem has only enabled it to continue seemingly unabated."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/...aw-enforcement

"FBI warned of white supremacists in law enforcement 10 years ago. Has anything changed?"

Considering these are the largest protest in US history by a very wide margin, any view that tries to write it all off as "rioters" or "thugs" is provably wrong. Some 20 million people have participated in the protests, which should be evidence enough. 20 million people have not been rioting.

But yes, there have been cases of rioting, in some cities on a large scale. I don't think this is disputable from the available evidence. Nor is there any "msm"-conspiracy to cover this up. I read plenty of newspapers and all have reported on this.

There have also been demonstrated many instances of police brutality, including attacks on journalists and observers. Personally I think several of these videos have shown gross over-reactions from police; Especially the Buffalo police pushing an old man, failing to help him when he was injured (assistance was granted by officers from a different agency) and writing a falsified report after was a particular galling example.

I don't see much point in trying to tie the merits of the protests to the existence or non-existence of riots. The former coming off as a covering your ears and going "na-na-na!" and the latter not being far off.

And the protests have been effective. Some 20 states have started passing reforms, the demonstrations have levels of support never seen before in racial matters with huge jumps in support compared to previous years. While there is a big partisan gap in the support, Gallup has still reported some 22% support of the protests among Republicans. Nearly half polled by gallop also reported the protests have changed their opinions.

I wouldn't be surprised if the recent reports about the Trump campaign shutting down current ad tactics and planning a reboot is tied to those latter numbers.

@corpus

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...nging-suicide/

Four black people have been found hanging from trees in the last month in California, New York and Texas. Authorities say that all of these deaths appear to be suicides, with no signs of foul play. But family members of the deceased, protesters and activists, and some scholars of anti-black violence are intuitively suspicious about those conclusions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3SeOc6UUsQ

no charges against these ppl. we all know they are affiliated with leo in some way.

and ofc, the arbury thing. that guy was a former cop and he was protected by the police and prosecutor in that area. you protested that vociferously tho. so really, it makes me wonder why you continue to arrogantly assert you know wtf is going on when you have been blatantly wrong every other time. maybe listen when ur superiors speak.

If defunding the police reduces the crime rate (especially murder), I'm on board!

I think protesting is great.

Agree that probably only a tiny percentage of protestors are violent.

Looks like President Obama fell asleep at the switch in failing to deal with it.

That is a pretty huge issue to tackle--it's been a reality for a long time. It also brings up the question of--who has the responsibility to make it right? I think most people believe the onus is on the party that did wrong no?

I agree that it is primarily a problem that must be solved at the local level.

I was kinda trolling the "Hope and Change' crowd.

(Which is dumb on my part since I don't think there are any big fans of Mr. Obama in this Forum .)