A LARPER meets reality

originally posted by: Grimpachi
In the video I hear two sets of shots. Not an expert but some sound like rifle shots.

5 shots then pause and 3 more shots.

Car honks.

People get pissy

People begin to mob a car

Someone yells Everybody get back

Five shots

Sound of bolt slamming to the rear,

Sound of mag exchange,

Sound of bolt being released

Three shots.

What I find amazing is that I can hear all of that in a crowd of screams. Either that ohone has a really good speaker, or there was a megophone or mic somewhere in the immediate vicinity of the incident.

Guy is still an idiot for running up on someone with a rifle and not being prepared. Doesn't look even look like he had body armor on.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No, we don't have all the facts... Agreed.

Anything we say here is conjecture nothing more. I think most of us know that.

The picture brings up so many questions it looks like his right arm is back like you have your finger on the trigger ready to shoot, but some are saying the shots didn't come from his AR? According to his wife/girlfriend he was pushing her in her wheel chair she is a quadruple amputee he a military veteran. Her mother says he was very protective of her daughter, which just makes a sad case that much more so.

originally posted by: seagull
Anything we say here is conjecture nothing more. I think most of us know that.

Most, but apparently some people can look at a photo and completely reconstruct the crime scene including intent.

originally posted by: putnam6
The picture brings up so many questions it looks like his right arm is back like you have your finger on the trigger ready to shoot, but some are saying the shots didn't come from his AR? According to his wife/girlfriend he was pushing her in her wheel chair she is a quadruple amputee both him and her are military veterans. Her mother says he was very protective of her daughter, which just makes a sad case that much more so.

At that point it looks pretty clear he has both hands on the rifle and is no longer pushing her. The photo is crap but I can certainly make that out.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

The 'very aggressive ready aim' position is not illegal. Oregon's open carry law permits you to carry a long gun as long as it's not pointed at someone. The ground isn't a someone.

I didn't say it was illegal I said it was an aggressive stance...lol Stop suggesting I said things I didn't

The fact that he is the one coming towards the guy and not the other way around and in a very aggressive stance it would not take much more for the car guy to feel he needs to fire first.

I'm also saying the car guy will not be convicted of anything....

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I didn't say it was illegal I said it was an aggressive stance...lol Stop suggesting I said things I didn't

You don't get to legally shoot people because they are standing aggressively.

The fact that he is the one come towards the guy and not the other way around...

So you know what transpired before that photo between him and the driver? You're powers get more amazing by the second.

Maybe you should preface your speculation with 'in my opinion' because pretending you know what happened and what people were thinking is absurd.

originally posted by: seagull

Of course, I wouldn't have stopped my cars in the first place...

I think he hit a barrier and then got swarmed... I don't think he wanted to stop.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

You don't get to legally shoot people because they are standing aggressively.

Lol he wasn't just standing aggressively...he was coming at him...see the difference...he was the aggressor...

So you know what transpired before that photo between him and the driver? You're powers get more amazing by the second.

I know the guy in the car wasn't moving since he was sitting down, and I know the guy with the AK came after the guy in the car since he...dare I use my powers...came at the guy...lol

Maybe you should preface your speculation with 'in my opinion' because pretending you know what happened and what people were thinking is absurd.

OK my opinion which is most likely correct is he will not be convicted of anything. Feel better?...

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Lol he wasn't just standing aggressively...he was coming at him...see the difference...he was the aggressor...

Which is still not illegal.

I know the guy in the car wasn't moving since he was sitting down, and I know the guy with the AK came after the guy in the car since he...dare I use my powers...came at the guy...lol.

Do you know what he was doing prior to the shooting? That's rhetorical, you don't.

I don't think they will charge him and if they do a jury wouldn't convict. There have been plenty of videos of rioters/protestors shooting at people in cars. Just having people swarming you like that out of the blue is enough to make people fear. Seeing someone with a gun coming towards you is 100% reason to fear for life.

Doesn't really matter what AK guys intention was. The driver had reason to fear for his life and if I was a juror I wouldn't vote to convict.

a reply to: KnoxMSP

You sound like you should know better -- that AK is a select fire rifle with gas impingement. Are we sure this was not an SKS semi-auto?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Do you know what he was doing prior to the shooting? That's rhetorical, you don't.

He was sitting in his car and shot the AK person at close range.... Can we agree with that?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

You don't get to legally shoot people because they are standing aggressively.

Lol he wasn't just standing aggressively...he was coming at him...see the difference...he was the aggressor...

So you know what transpired before that photo between him and the driver? You're powers get more amazing by the second.

I know the guy in the car wasn't moving since he was sitting down, and I know the guy with the AK came after the guy in the car since he...dare I use my powers...came at the guy...lol

Maybe you should preface your speculation with 'in my opinion' because pretending you know what happened and what people were thinking is absurd.

OK my opinion which is most likely correct is he will not be convicted of anything. Feel better?...

What other pictures or video have you seen that tells you what happened after the picture we’re looking at in this thread? How do you know Mr. AK walked towards the front of the vehicle?

The police and witnesses said the man in the car turned it aggressively toward the marchers, and Mr. Foster then approached it. The driver opened fire, shooting Mr. Foster, who was rushed to a hospital and was later pronounced dead.

www.nytimes.com...

It’s interesting that both police and witnesses are saying the driving was driving aggressively. I wonder how he was driving aggressively?

This stuff needs to come to an end. Voices have been heard and agreed with by the majority, the longer this goes on, the longer it comes away from the original intent.

originally posted by: Drucifer

I know the guy in the car wasn't moving since he was sitting down, and I know the guy with the AK came after the guy in the car since he...dare I use my powers...came at the guy...lol

From everything I have heard the guy was sitting in his car and shot the AK guy through his window at point blank range. No one else just the one guy there with the AK...do you think it was different?

The police and witnesses said the man in the car turned it aggressively toward the marchers, and Mr. Foster then approached it. The driver opened fire, shooting Mr. Foster, who was rushed to a hospital and was later pronounced dead.

So ya as I said Mr. Foster approached and most likely holding his AK as in the picture...Not sure how what I said before is different than this and what you wrote above. The driver didn't spray the crowd he had full intent to shoot the guy with the AK, and it seems no one else.

This is the victim earlier in the night being interviewed.

“Victim”

Nope

a reply to: Breakthestreak

well he was a victim of his own stupidity.

One less to deal with in the future. You start to raise a gun at me I will fire first and last, simple as that.

Texas self defense defenses require these conditions to be met...

only use the minimum amount of force necessary for self-defense,

reasonably believe that force was necessary to stop someone else’s use of unlawful force,

did not provoke the attack,

were not engaged in a crime.

It may be up to a jury to decide if these conditions were met

I sure hope that they have more information on hand than we do in this thread.