This is the second law of weapon safety taught in the military, law enforcement, and every gun safety course and it follows right after:
Treat Every Weapon as if it is Loaded
The reason you don’t point your weapon at something/someone you do not intend to shoot is two-fold. One, you won’t shoot something/someone you didn’t intend to, accidentally. Two, under this law, if you are pointing your weapon at something, it means you intend to shoot it and every gun owner knows that is your intent.
If you point a gun at someone you should expect them to believe you intend to shoot them.
Do I think Garrett Foster intended to shoot that driver in Austin? No, I think he was trying to intimidate an otherwise peaceful citizen and fucked with the wrong guy.
But you get no sympathy from me if you point a weapon at another human-being and they smoke your ass. I hope Garrett got a few seconds of self-reflection before he succumbed to his wounds.
This is the second law of weapon safety taught in the military, law enforcement, and every gun safety course and it follows right after:
Treat Every Weapon as if it is Loaded
The reason you don’t point your weapon at something/someone you do not intend to shoot is two-fold. One, you won’t shoot something/someone you didn’t intend to, accidentally. Two, under this law, if you are pointing your weapon at something, it means you intend to shoot it and every gun owner knows that is your intent.
If you point a gun at someone you should expect them to believe you intend to shoot them.
Do I think Garrett Foster intended to shoot that driver in Austin? No, I think he was trying to intimidate an otherwise peaceful citizen and fucked with the wrong guy.
But you get no sympathy from me if you point a weapon at another human-being and they smoke your ass. I hope Garrett got a few seconds of self-reflection before he succumbed to his wounds.
And most important, never shoot unless you intend to KILL.
That's definitely not always the case for police officers. If they shoot and bring down a perp, they are not supposed to keep shooting unless they believe themselves to be in imminent danger.
I understand that ignorant people think the police should be like Hollywood actors and shoot to wound, but that's not realistic. I know the legal experts tell you to lie, but I choose to not bear false witness.
In fact, I expect double taps as a standard practice.
It's not about shooting to wound. It's about the law. The law says that if the perp is knocked down by the shot and is no longer an active threat - you have to stop shooting.
Let's make it simpler and say that if you're at the point that a gun is in use, you don't have to stop firing.
Cause you know what the real problem is? Not having to face the real consequences of their actions. The way things are now, I can shoot at a cop and reasonably expect to live. I won't shoot at a cop fully knowing I'm causing my execution
I've seen so many videos where the perp does something stupid, but every officer in a group fires 5-10 shots at the dude. And the guy just had a knife or something and was on his way down after the first shot or two. That shit isn't justified. Not just because the threat was eliminated, but because officers are supposed to risk their lives for us. They need to be willing to die to ensure our rights aren't trampled on. As in they need to quickly stop shooting the second they can.
Speaking as someone that once got 8 perfectly aimed headshots in 8 pulls of the trigger all on adrenaline fueled instinct in Call of Duty in, like, a second and a half...
Adrenaline's a hellava thing...you lose control, a lot can happen in the blink of an eye. Can't judge cops for what happens in the heat of the moment. If they forget to stop firing after the 2nd or 3rd shot you gotta remember that time was doing funny things. Probably thought they only fired once or twice
I can't agree. They hold people's lives in their hands, they need to act more professionally and in control than everyone else. If one guy with a knife is charging a group of officers, they still need to show restraint. Numbers, training, and type of weapons are almost always on their side. They need to be trained to be in control and only use as much force as necessary despite adrenaline and fear.
At close range a knife is more dangerous than a gun. A cop can’t predict how many shots it will take to stop someone, and it’s ridiculous to expect that. They should shoot until the threat is neutralized.
That is different than when facing a continuous threat. I do think the first doube tap should do the job.
Opening line for an officer that is about to result to violence.
"First two are bean bags, the rest are buckshot."
A dead guy cant testify against you
That's actually how the law works for everybody.
If there's no longer a threat, you stop shooting.
If you shoot someone, they throw their gun away and surrender clearly, and you open up again... You're going away, bad news.
Now, if they hit the floor and start scrambling for a gun they dropped... Threat is still active and you've got a green to mag dump it need be.
Police or not, you should never say shoot to kill. It can get you into trouble, always use the term shoot to stop the threat or something similar.
You don't intend to kill them, but it tends to be a side effect of stopping someone from killing you when using deadly force.
It is a truism. You don't shoot game unless you intend to kill it. And you don't use a gun unless you intend to defend yourself with deadly force. Therefore, shoot to kill. It's a last resort. Not the first impulse.
I get it, just legal advice from a cop...
I understand. But I choose not to lie just to play the game.
TY
Never shoot at anything you’re not willing to kill. Doesn’t mean you intend to. It just means you recognize that an unintended consequence could be death.
Can you hear all the REEEEEEEEEeeeeing from the "can't you just shoot 'em in the leg?" crowd?
You mean the "never shot a gun in their lives" crowd?
yup. Never even held a gun, but EXPERTS on all things because they learned "everything their is to no" from the Internet.
That's not what you're taught in firearms training. You shoot to stop the threat, and you stop shooting once the threat is neutralized.
Shoot to kill is murder in the eyes of the law.
The unspoken truth is that stopping the threat requires KILLING the one threatening if it has devolved to the point of shooting. No one familiar with close quarters combat will shoot unless it's required to KILL to remove the threat. Alternatives to shooting are tried if it has a reasonable chance of working. But once you've made the decision to shoot, you've made the decision to KILL. If you are inept and lucky enough to reduce the threat by such ineptness, you're in a new situation.
Tactical cover may be an exception in a situation where you have a team.
Yes, it's lethal force. But in the eyes of the law you never say shoot to kill. It's also why in firearms training classes they tell you not to aim for the head. It's not only that you're more likely to miss, but it could be seen as murder if you go straight for the head shot, because then your intent is to kill. Aim 2 center mass, and if that doesn't stop the target then you aim for the head. Because if they take 2 center mass and don't go down they are either wearing body armor or hopped up on drugs.
But yes, 2 center mass will almost definitely kill someone.
For every failing that he has had, real or imagined. The dude was spot on with this observation. That's Dr. Tyson to us with his Phd in Applied Pain
If you point a gun at me, I have NO option other than to do everything within my power to eliminate you as quickly and as totally as I can. My life is more important to me than anything else in that moment including yours.
The moment a gun is pointed at a person I expect at least 1 human life to be extinguished.
Excellent post
Agree 100%. I think his LARP got out of control. I really think he wanted to look like a tough guy by shooting into the pavement but in the heat of the moment the driver had no idea of the LARPer's intent so he lit him up. Justified.
He blew the tires out. If that car still intended to still move forward he would have put rounds into the driver's section of the car.
He was already beyond the point of making the discussion to use his weapon as a deadly weapon.
It's just he was not expecting to ever run into a person willing to defend himself with the same force he was ready to apply to the car driver.
You can go into the whole issue of him being really bad at handling his weapon or the issue of the failure of law enforcement to clear the streets of these people. But at the end of the day, he was willing to take someone else's life.
He gave an interview before this and it's very very clear at his mental state towards non-socialists.
Preach 🙌
Maybe they don't teach that in the Air force? Lol, do they even fire weapons?
You have 2 days of range time in USAF boot. They teach you all the rules. He didn't listen.
I tried to find anything I could about him. There is a possible connection that he is the same SrA Garrett Foster as pictured in a training exercise the Air Force released a long time ago for a MOPP. In that exercise the person in question doesn't have a weapon on them and his BMT blues obviously don't have his AFSC. But if it is the same guy, he probably wasn't spec ops or SF, so he probably didn't have much weapons training.
Can't confirm anything but so far he was probably as dangerous as base populace with a weapon. Might have only qualified on his weapon to deploy.
Who are you ?
I'm Rey.
Rey who ?
Rey Stinpiece moron with you AK who tried to kill unarmed citizen.
rule 101 of guns.
These are the exact words my father used when teaching me about firearms.
no "self-reflection" b/c the victim mentality is ingrained in these braindead morons. Nothing is their fault. They can take no personal responsibility for events that happen to them.
Absolutely spot on.
I think you are mistaken when you say that the islamoleftist didn't intend to shoot the driver. How long are you going to refuse to accept reality? Reality is that these islamoleftists do want to kill us all. The only reason they are not doing that is, 1. they don't have the balls, 2. they are not sure if they can escape the consequences. But other than that, they do want to kill us and enslave us and they would do it if they could.
If you still think that the islamoleftists have good intentions then maybe you are too scared to face the truth that we are indeed in a total war situation. They want to control your children even, what makes you doubt that they are not eager to kill you to make their power grab?
The very first war that an individual wins, is against his own self, against his own fear of accepting the truth. Once you have won that war, once are have built up the courage to be able to face the truth yourself, you will be able to fight the enemy outside. If you are not able to win over your own fear to face the truth, then you cannot win the enemy outside either.
Wake up on the wrong side of your tendies today? Nothing wrong with OP's post
Yup. I don’t care what he thought he was doing, you don’t fire a weapon with peaceful intentions.
BuT iT wAs A pEaCeFuL PrOtEsT! PeAcEfUl ShOtS fIrEd!
Firing the weapon is irrelevant too. Just pointing it is enough to justify the shooting.
I've been hearing conflicting reports. What is the evidence so far about whether the BLM white guy fired his weapon or just pointed it ?
I am just curious.
Here APD police chief Brian Manley’s explanation. This seems very credible and well aligned with the video.
https://thedonald.win/p/GbfWAiFN/new-info-about-austin-shooting-m/
TLDR: Foster pointed his weapon. The large caliber shots are the driver shooting and killing Garrett Foster. The small caliber shots are another rioter returning fire at the driver.
I was just looking for a brief one or two sentence summary of the available public evidence about whether or not the deceased fired the AK.
But thanks for mentioning that he was released with no charges - that tells me that the driver was justifiably acting in self-defense.
Briefing for reference: https://thedonald.win/p/GbfWAiFN/new-info-about-austin-shooting-m/
From APD Police Chief Brian Manley.
Foster pointed his weapon. The large caliber shots are the driver shooting and killing Garrett Foster. The small caliber shots are another rioter returning fire at the driver.
He could be acting in self defense regardless of whether he fired first or not.
The audio of the shots indicate 5 shots a pause, three shots and then a fourth almost simultaneous with the third shot. Others indicated a belief that the first five shots were from the rifle. I don't know and it's really not relevant to the immediate threat.
The first 5 sounded louder than the second 3. But there are too many variables including echos and shielding to feel certain the details are fully known.
Yeah, I get the concept that you don't need to wait for the other guy to fire at you in order to be acting in self defense. (:-). (:-)
I was just curious to know what all the established facts were.
It appears as though Garrett Foster did not fire his weapon. The large caliber shots heard in the video are from the driver. The small caliber shots are another protestor returning fire.
It seems what Foster did was point his weapon at a driver.
According to Austin Police Chief, Brian Manley, anyways: https://thedonald.win/p/GbfWAiFN/new-info-about-austin-shooting-m/
But I’d agree that whether he fired or not is, in fact irrelevant. He pointed his weapon and he paid the price for that stupid action.
I dunno. . . Darwin Award Winner fired FIVE TIMES.
I think that is going a bit beyond merely “trying to intimidate”.
What if, and I'm being purely hypothetical. What if i'm trying to threaten my cat?
He keeps fuckin up and being nice hasn't worked yet.
I’ll allow it, your cat lacks opposable thumbs, you’ll be alright... I think.
Props on the best comment on this thread, gave me a good chuckle.
Doesnt seem to work, he does not fear death..
He does fear soapy water though.
boint at benis
Amen brother
Awful but lawful. NEXT!
My S&W .38 came with a slip of paper like the fortune from a cookie. It said "Do not point this weapon at anything you do not intend to kill." Buy a toaster? A whole booklet of cautions. S&W revolver? "This is a lethal weapon. Full stop.".
TLDR: Pointing your weapon at communists is fine.
Did they release any info on whether the Garrett guy actually fired any rounds?
https://thedonald.win/p/GbfWAiFN/new-info-about-austin-shooting-m/
Interesting. So despite initial beliefs that the dead guy fired his AK first, it turns out the victim (guy in car) fired the first 5 rounds when soon-to-be dead guy pointed his AK at him. The second rounds heard later was from some dumbass firing at the victims car as he drove away. Based on the sound of those first 5 shots I'm thinking the victim (Texas citizen) had a large caliber hand gun.
I suspect you're right and the bystander who might not have known the shooting was justified fires a small caliber weapon. It explains the time lag. I still don't know if there was a third shooter (ninth shot) and who he was shooting at.
The biggest problem with speculation is when you confuse it with facts. Just be aware that speculation is just that. I've seen no claim of evidence of shooting the tires. Just speculation which than is repeated as facts.
There appears to be nothing in the initial report by police which contradicts the audio other than the ninth shot? which could be an echo or impact rather than a shot. The driver's claim that the weapon was pointed at him may or may not have corroborating evidence.
I tend to expect at least some who saw nothing and will dispute it anyway. That's what liberals do.
This is easy to get confused. 2 different Garrets were shooting at people at different events.
Just call the one in Austin the Foster Kid.
Him and his fiance had something in common for a few minutes. Pants full of shit and piss. Fuck that idiot.