One person dead in shooting at protest in Downtown Austin

The video shows different. First you hear 5 shots from an AK. Only after those 5 shots do you hear 3 pistol shots.

Watch the video.

 

Manley is good. Watch the video. 5 BIG bangs, then 3 smaller bangs.

 

AK shot 5 rounds before any pistol fire.

 

Except for the fact that such did not happen, as the individual armed with the rifle was the first to initiate violence.

 

This video.

 

The man who shot Foster said that he shot Foster. He did not say that Foster shot at him.

The 2nd shooter, said that he shot at the first shooter as the guy in the car was leaving the scene.

Both witnesses, and the police chief, say that Foster never shot his rifle. He may or may not have pointed it at the guy in the car. On that last point, there is conflicting testimony. The police are asking for anyone with additional photos or video to come forward.

 

I have. Still see no evidence of your claim. And before you start, I go to the range regularly. Nothing about the first 5 shots absolutely identifies them as rifle shots, and the next three shots are also quieter due to the positioning of the camera. Even the driver doesn't back up your claims.

 

Correct, that’s why I posted this about an hour ago.

 

The video I posted above, you can hear the 5 rounds from the AK first.

 

Therein lies the problem. Your ignorance as to what an AK sounds like.

 

Two shooters. Neither of them was Foster.

 

It’s very easily concluded if a weapon has been recently fired.

 

You mean your invention about what an AK sounds like, which is also contradicted by the driver and APD? Funny, but no. But please, regale us with the evidence that the first shots were 7.62 x 39 and not 9mm. Surely you have lots of proof. Btw, I've shot both.

 

The police have both handguns. The handgun of the guy in the car who shot Foster. And the handgun of the guy who pulled out his gun and fired 3 shots at the car as the guy was leaving the scene. I'm sure they can check both handguns.

They probably also have Foster's rifle, but the testimonies they took both said Foster did not shoot at the driver.

 

It'll be interesting to see how this shooting is ruled, could go either way at this point.

 

´ ~ There's always some nut with a gun. Was he wearing a mask ?
Better get used to this for a while. If we get more police defunding and retirement we will once again return to the days of the wild west .
´

Don't forget to vote ...!

 

I love how they just left the entire part about the protestor shooting first.

Journalist and media can no longer be trusted to report the news. Their industry will continue to become less relevant as camera are everywhere and on the spot journalism through the internet continues to decimate their profession. And good riddance.

 

The protester who is dead never fired a single shot, unless you think the police chief and the guy who shot the protester are both liars.

 

I don't know if the driver intentionally accelerated for the purpose of driving into the crowd, or if he naturally just drove. Because of the chaos, a close-up of the scene(which is really important in this case) is almost impossible.(that's why they're looking for more video.) To determine whether or not it's a homicide, Foster's behavior becomes really important.

It's about whether or not Foster poised a credible threat. If Foster pointed his gun, he becomes a credible threat. Hell one would argue that even if the gun was pointed downwards, it wouldn't take long to pull it out and fire it.

But if on the other hand, this dude just drove up and shot Foster unsuspectingly then that's murder, plain as day.

 

Yes, it will be. Sounds like the guy in the car is trying to claim that Foster either was holding his rifle or pointed it at him when he approached the car. Either way, shooting him is self-defense.

On the other hand, it doesn't sound like any of the protester witnesses are corroborating that Foster was either holding or pointing his rifle at the driver. If the rifle was still strapped to Foster's body, then he was "carrying" a weapon, but not "holding" a weapon. Then a jury might go either way.

 

Got it.

So the guy, walking around a protest with an AK-47 winds up dead of a gunshot wound, but he was innocent?

All he had to do was point that gun at the driver, and its justified.

Do we have a photo posted earlier that he is pointing his gun at the car?

 

Manley needs to educate himself on the fact that bangs sound bigger when you are closer to them, without cover, with the microphone facing toward them. Even after those factors, the "smaller bangs" were only a fraction smaller. It is a fake argument.

 

Simply carrying a gun does not make you guilty, despite your claims. If he did indeed point the gun at the driver, then yes, the shooting was justified. That's what we have conflicting reports about.

 

He may be innocent if his rifle was still strapped to his body when he was shot. I think they are trying to confirm with additional witnesses, photos or videos whether he was holding or pointing the rifle while approaching the car.

The only photo I've seen, and posted, looks like Foster is close to the car, but his rifle is still strapped to his chest.

 

Manley is the Austin Police Chief. He's not the one who is confused. lol