Comments by "oolong2" (@oolong2) on "Garrett Foster Shot During Anti-Racist Demonstrations in Texas | NowThis" video.

How about we don't shoot people who aren't shooting at you? By your logic someone should have shot the driver, because he was also a threat.
12
@lukel4679 Based on that logic. The protesters should have just opened fired into the car because of the numerous incidence of people running over protesters. Best not to take chances right? The protesters should have just shot the driver dead as soon as he started honking. If they didn't wait then that guy would be alive.
6
Who are you talking about the Driver? It's funny how one sided people can be when defending murderers.
4
@silverpairaducks Car running into protesters is also a threat. They should have shot the driver without speaking to him right? If they did that guy would be alive.
3
freshcaller Who said he was running? It's not illegal to open carry nor is it illegal to run. Suddenly gun rights mean nothing to you people when politics are involved.
2
@Ohfr_ So instead of the protesters risking getting run over (which has literally happened in dozens of incidents across the country) they should have just shot the driver instead of talking to him right?
2
@lukel4679 Well this is the world you're asking for, not me.... Vehicular homicide is a real thing, especially in these protests, so based on your logic the protesters should have just opened fire on the driver without ever talking to him. That guy certainly would be alive if they did. So next time a car acts aggressive to protesters, based on your logic, they should just open fire on the driver and kill him before he has a chance to do anything.
2
@lukel4679 So if the protesters knew or thought the driver had a gun, then it would be perfectly okay for them to open fire and kill him instead of just walking up to him? I'm trying to figure out the logic of this world you want to live in where people can just kill other people when they just think there could be a threat. Again, vehicular homicide has been occurring all over the country in these protests. Based on YOUR logic one could reasonably think that a car running up on a group of protesters honking could be a threat. In your world, that perceived threat is all that is required to kill a person.
2
@pamthompson3812 Please show me any police report that shows a driver getting killed or beaten in these protests by getting out of their car. Meanwhile I can show you numerous cases of people running over protesters with their cars and killing some.
2
@lukel4679 You don't have time to react when the car is a few feet away. And self defense implies an attack, there wasn't one. Again your logic here is that simply the perception of a possible attack is enough to kill someone. By your logic the protesters should have just opened fire into the driver and kept firing until he was dead and unable to depress the gas pedal.
2
@Ohfr_ The driver decided to drive into the marchers. So based on your logic the protesters had every right to shoot the driver dead, before he could do anything because he was a threat at that point. You're letting your politics dictate who should live and who should die. It's a really disgusting attitude. ---"The police and witnesses said the man in the car turned it aggressively toward the marchers"
2
@dedutch101 The protester wasn't brandishing a gun it was strapped to his shoulder and not pointed at anyone. Plus it's an open carry state. Everything he did was perfectly legal. So why are you making things up? Just so so you can pretend that the "guy deserved what he got"? Should those Michigan protesters protesting with their rifles and storming the capital building been shot to? By all accounts the driver turned into the marchers. He was active aggressive, that is why they approached the car. However based on your logic the protesters should have just shot the driver and kept shooting until they were confident that he could press the gas pedal. --"The police and witnesses said the man in the car turned it aggressively toward the marchers"
2
@dedutch101 Sorry, but you're lying. Please tell me the source of what you're quoting. Because the only person making that claim is the shooter, all other witnesses say the gun was never pointed at the driver. The only threat in this situation was the driver who intentionally drove into the crowd. Again, based on your logic the protesters should have immediately killed the driver based on this perceived threat. ---"witnesses told the American-Statesman that the driver appeared to drive into the crowd and came to a stop when the vehicle hit a temporary barrier erected to block traffic from the street. Several protesters, including Foster, approached the car, they said, and Foster had his weapon pointed down."
2
Michael Combs The road was barricaded to traffic because the protest. The driver drove directly into the crowd anyway which is why the protesters were agitated. The driver could have killed someone with his car and ended up killing someone with his gun instead. The guy came there looking for trouble and murdered someone. If the protesters had your mindset they would have shot the driver as soon as he drove into the crowd.
2
freshcaller Well it's an open carry state so are you saying that anyone open carrying, with a rifle on their shoulder and not pointed at you, should be shot and killed? Or does this law only apply to people whose politics you like? Given the numerous incidents of vehicular homicide and injuries from cars plowing into protests, these protesters should have just opened fire at the driver based on your logic.
1
@jonathanbalderas1722 That's basically what this world is turning into.... Apparently anyone who is a perceived threat should be shot immediately. Theoretically that would also include unidentified federal agents.
1