Or did you think I meant the protesters were defending themselves?

Clarification, both Foster and the McCloskys were both legally carrying their weapons. The moment they raised them in defense, only one of them got shot.

Too often am I hearing that the person in the car was right to shoot because Foster raised his gun.

So, those same people should be arguing FOR the protesters because the McCloskys raised theirs, right?

Personally, I would disagree with that assessment.

The difference being the McCloskys obviously couldn't tell if the protesters were armed or not.

Neither could Foster. The only difference is, the guy behind the wheel of the car had not only one weapon, but two. And was more willing to use them than the trespassing protesters.

I have to wonder why.

And he wasn't pointing his gun at police officers. He was pointing his gun at a civilian driving a car against a red light into a crowd of people.

Also, it's a fair comparison. The difference, of course, is no one was shot when the couple pointed their guns at the so-called violent intruders.

Are you really comparing people who were on their own property to a man who was blocking traffic? You don't have a legal right to block traffic.

You also don't have a legal right to run people over either.

Yes, you do. If they are blocking you from driving, and you feel like your life is in danger. You have the right to escape the situation in any way possible. Especially if the person standing in the middle of the road is pointing an AK47 at your face. If I stood in front of your car in the middle of the road and pointed an AK47 at you, you know the first thing that you would think is that your life is in danger.

He didn't point the AK47 until he ran his car into people, tho. So, your analogy isn't comparable.

You can not run people over for protesting.

Again, yes you can. Cars go in streets, people go on sidewalks. When people go on the streets, they're breaking the law. You can't just block the streets whenever you want to ( yes, they were blocking the street, thats how he was able to walk up to the car). Don't try to say he wasn't pointing his gun at the guy, either. He wasn't carrying around an AK47, talking about pointing it at people, and then when something happened he suddenly decided not to point it at someone. You know he was pointing it at him, and if you say he wasn't you're lying

The car was was crossing an interaction against the light to deliberately run toward people. Foster did not raise his gun until the driver did this.

Foster could have moved
Bottom line if your in the street and a car is coming move! And if instead of moving you raise your gun expect to get shot

And Perry could've slowed down at an intersection and observed there were people walking through the streets.

If a car is coming at you at high speed while turning a corner, and you are pushing someone in a wheelchair... which Foster was... you don't have a lot of time to move. But you do have enough time to raise a weapon in self-defense.

Are you going to make the argument that the McCloskeys should have moved when people were harassing them outside their home? Or that they should've fled? Or are you saying that only one of these people were justified because of their politics?

And you may not know how gun laws in this country work, but both Foster and the McCloskeys absolutely had the right to raise their weapons if they thought their lives were in danger. It seems your opinion is he shouldn't have ever raised his weapon at all. That your politics matters when someone sees oppression. That appears to be your real bottom line.

And I wholeheartedly disagree. The reason you felt the need to create an account solely for the purpose of responding to this little meme proves that it triggered you. And it made you think, how dare someone compare these two incidents. And I think it has nothing to do with the situation. It has to do with politics.

And my bottom line, people shouldn't be killing each other over politics.

And yet here we are.

If foster were a right singer and the driver a leftist, you wouldn't be here..... You wouldn't care at all...

I'm defending both Foster and the McCloskeys. I had no idea what the driver's political reason was to drive into people. I'm not even sure it was political. I don't see everything as political. Maybe you do?

He didn't drive into anyone, the proof resides in the City's records.... Nobody went to the hospital. Sorry bud, but just because a car turns right on red and there happens to be a mass of rioters in the way of travel of it, there is no excuse for condemning the driver of ANY wrongdoing.

I doubt you looked at the city records.

No one was rioting, they were marching.

I'm condemning the driver for reckless driving, which is fair.

You said he was turning right on red. That is not crossing an intersection...

It is crossing an intersection. You do not have to drive forward or turn left to cross an intersection as a car. That's why it's called an intersection. All sides count and as a driver, you're supposed to yield to pedestrians. There is no law that allows you to careen into pedestrians. Any cop would say the driver was at fault.

Stand your ground applies on your own property, not when you are standing in a city street..

"Because, I said so. NOT because of any fact based data.." I'm sure that you would become animated if someone showed or handed you an ar15. I'm sure you've had no actual exposure to firearms or the NRA. I grew up around firearms, lots of them! Never once had a problem.

maybe if you could use a different meme template, you might make something that isn't an eyesore by accident

No, one was a couple protecting themselves from an angry mob of rioters bent on destroying some property. The other was a member of an angry mob of rioters bent on destroying property raised his gun at a person who was being attacked by the angry rioters he was a part of

The protest was peaceful until shots rang out from the person driving the vehicle. There was no riot or a lot more people would've been shot. This is Texas, after all. The mob did not descend upon the vehicle until it drove too fast into the crowd of people.

That ‘crowd of people’ as you say were the angry mob of rioters. That dude was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Also those rioters shouldn’t have been in the street to begin with. Idiots, every one of them. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes

Banging on cars that drive into a crowd of people is not "rioting" Do you have any police reports or news outlets reporting the destruction of public property on July 25th, in Austin, Texas?

Banging on cars that drive by is called mob intimidation techniques meant to show and demonstrate intimidation, force, control, and power. Also, Austin is a proCommie Texas city and all media are also proCommie.

Only one was threatening someone, & the others were defending themselves. If you can't acknowledge that, YOU HAVE AN AGENDA.....

If you think this is political, then you have an agenda.

Top was blocking a street illegally and intimidating motorists with a firearm. Bottom was defending their property while on their own property.
Next!!

Do you actually have an argument?

Yes the argument is simple one person was on there property and had reason to believe they where in danger. The other person was blocking traffic on government property. That’s we’re cars drive so if he raised his weapon it was not in self defense because the driver was not doing anything wrong.

That would be like if I jumped out in front of a car on the highway and shot the driver in the face and tried to claim self defense because the car was coming right at me.

Point of fact, they were not blocking traffic but rather walking down the street with very little traffic at all. They were crossing on a red light, which is legal, when a car drove against the light toward them.

The so-called dangerous people did no damage, nor did they actually trespass on their property. They certainly trespassed on private property, sure, but they were not actually on the property of the two people who drew their guns. So, it wasn't "their" property, exactly. It was the neighborhood's shared property.

My argument stems from the fact that both parties drew their guns. Leading some to make the very reasonable claim that if you point a gun at someone, expect to be shot if you're not going to use it. So, either the couple put themselves in more danger by "defending" themselves OR Garrett Foster was shot for "defending" himself.

Your analogy is quite flawed in two very important respects. First, cars can be used as a lethal weapon. This is why police officers are perfectly willing and legally authorized to open fire on suspects fleeing in vehicles. They don't even have to claim that the car is "coming at them" but rather that the suspect was endangering the lives of other civilians, whether present or not. By that same argument, if you approach a crowd with only the intention to mow them down, then armed protesters have the same right to defend themselves. Especially, if that car was crossing against the light, which it was.

Garrett Foster was walking around with an AK47. He literally talked in an interview about pointing guns at people.
There is an actual video of him saying these words out of his own mouth, "The only reason I don't point my gun at the police is because they would kill me, And the people talking shit about us are too pussy to do anything about it."
Garrett Foster WAS blocking the road. If he weren't blocking the road how would he have approached a mother f**king car, you f**king idiot. Do you think he could run down a car on foot?
The people in the first picture WERE defending their property. The people technically weren't on their property yet, Because they hadn't broken the gate down yet. But when somebody is breaking down the gate to get into your yard, you can be pretty mother f**king sure what their intent is. They didn't leave their property and start pointing guns at people. They stood on their porch and said "stop trying to break into our property." You're either the world's dumbest person who can't use logic to figure out what's going on, Or you're a liar trying to twist the facts to make the truth whatever you want it to be.

Temper temper. Garrett Foster was walking around with an AK47, which is his legal right. He literally talked in an interview about thinking fascists were all talk. He was wrong.

Sometimes in streets there are designated areas where people can cross. It just so happens that while Garrett was in the road, at the time when the car approached him, aggressively, he was in a crosswalk. And the car was, again, moving into a crowd of people on a red light. You're intentionally ignoring a vital part of the facts I've given to you.

I'm glad you acknowledge that the people were not actually on their property, however there was no gate in front of the protesters and the property owners. They were in the street in a gated community. They were trespassing in a gated community. They weren't breaking down the gate to get into their yard, they broke down a gate to get into the community. That seems to be where a few people have gotten the wrong impression here. In fact, they weren't even going after the McCloskeys or their residence but rather were going to Mayor Lyda Krewson's home to protest her revealing the names and addresses of people calling for police reform.

I'm neither a liar nor twisting facts. I'm not condemning the McCloskeys, but rather find the people who call them heroes while cheaply chuckling at Foster's death over political differences. Both were certainly well within their rights to open carry and defend themselves against hostile people with only hold differences of opinions. It seems to me that siding with one extreme only exacerbates the issue.

And it seems only one side is willing to kill for their political beliefs.

At least, for now.

The car was stationary.... Your narrative is BULL$#!™ & You have done nothing but lie & twist facts here.......

The car was stationary after it drove through people.

I appreciate you making an account just to talk to me. You could always present yourself with your real account. At the time of this comment, you (theodoreDow-man) and Ezmeech created your accounts to comment just on this meme.

Very interesting.

Either you're someone on this site trying to protect your anonymity... which is hilarious since most of us have anonymity already... or maybe someone linked my post on Reddit and this is the first time either of you have genuinely used the site.

In either case, welcome to Imgflip.

I appreciate talking with you all the same. Perhaps if people talked more, there would be less need to shoot one another.

The car hit nobody. And yes I created an account to respond specifically to the meme. I have no other accounts and I do not use reddit, or any other social media network aside from YouTube.

Cool.

Don't flatter yourself. You didn't make me mad. If I called you a f**king idiot, its because your a f**king idiot. The rioters have murdered more than 30 people. They shut down the Chaz because self-appointed Chaz shot an unarmed 16-year-old black man. Hey wasn't doing anything. They just shot a vehicle that looked like a different one that had been firing into the chaz. That's right, the people protesting police violence against black people shot and arnam the black teenager without even finding out who he was. Do you actually watch the news or do you get all your news from memes? I'll say it again.. you're a f**king idiot.

We're not talking about rioters and Chaz. We're talking about the fact that people are celebrating Garrett Foster's death because he was participating in a BLM protest with a gun, and was legally carrying it, and did not shoot anyone with it.

That's my problem and the topic of discussion. And you insisting I'm a "f**king idiot" is purely an emotional response and a personal opinion based on little to no fact. You can no longer argue your point, so you're only reinforcing that emotional response by trying to provoke one from me. It isn't going to work.

Please try again.

Trust me its not emotional. Science can prove you're a f**king idiot.

Science perhaps, but you cannot. Not for me having a different opinion.

I'm responding to your comment that one side is able to kill for its beliefs. Those were your words. Do you think that Garrett Foster is on a different side than the Chaz protesters? They are two separate groups of BLM protesters. So the side that is willing to kill for their point of view is the left.
PS- I'm not trying to get him an emotional response out of you. Why would you think that I care what kind of response you give. You don't matter to me

Foster was not affiliated with CHAZ, that I know of. He was only participating in a BLM march in Texas. Both are linked by their protest of police brutality other than that, I see very little difference in the point you're trying to make.

And I very clearly do matter to you if you felt the need to create an account just to respond. I appreciate your opinion, all the same.

My point is fairly simple. No one should die over a difference of political opinions. And honestly, it shouldn't even be political. Police that shoot unarmed civilians are scum. End of story.

I didn't create an account just to respond to you. How did you even come up with that idea?

So, again. Thank you for creating an account just for me. Truly only someone would care about what kind of response I give. I must really matter to you.

I just realized this site is probably the only attention you get. Im sorry for that. I'm sorry your dads not part of your life. While its true that your post doesn't matter to me, you do matter.

I didn't create an account to comment on one meme. I created an account to create memes, which I have done often. Just because I don't comment on memes doesnt mean I don't use the site. Like I said, get over yourself. Nobody online cares about you( no, responding to a post doesn't mean I care).

Where is your video proof of the car approaching a red light. In what context is a light even relevant? A group of people could easily slow a car's travel enough to prevent it from getting through a green light. Fact is nobody was hit by a car.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NotxWhD_s3U

Daniel Perry turned right on red into a crowd of people. Normally, it is legal to turn right on red, but not when there are pedestrians present. In no legal context did Perry have the right to do this. He did have a legal right to open fire on Garrett Foster, but he seemed quick to realize that he was in danger seconds after rolling down his window. Maybe it was his training, or maybe it was something else. Either way, it is unlikely he'll be charged and the incident will continue to be used politically. Which, I personally find disgusting no matter which side you fall on.

Lol I knew it... Turning right on red but it was his fault people were blocking his way.

BYE...

Um, no. When you turn right on red, in an intersection, you are still supposed to yield to people. He didn't do that.

He was surrounded by rioters...
Also turning right on red means that traffic is in procession perpendicular to you, pedestrians will not be crossing a road that has a green light both ways...
If he did what you keep claiming that he did, he could've very easily plowed right through that crowd of people. But that's not what happened in the video is it...
No, clearly not.

No one was rioting. You are suppose to yield to people regardless. I'm not sure why he stopped unless he did not see the people, unlikely, until the last second. Which is driving recklessly.

Anyone who is doing what they were doing, is rioting... He stopped, because he had no intention of running anyone over.. you're being a simpleton.

Garrett is exemplary of what will happen every time such a situation arises.
Just keep that in mind.

Nice racist comment.

Nice trolling!

"I just realized this site is probably the only attention you get. Im sorry for that. I'm sorry your dads not part of your life. While its true that your post doesn't matter to me, you do matter.

I didn't create an account to comment on one meme. I created an account to create memes, which I have done often. Just because I don't comment on memes doesnt mean I don't use the site. Like I said, get over yourself. Nobody online cares about you( no, responding to a post doesn't mean I care)."

Pretty sure it does!

Especially if you're only commenting on my one meme in the two months your account has existed..

No it doesn't. No matter how much you say it. But if this is the only value that you can place on yourself sure we'll go with that

Nah, I got plenty of people to talk to. And when you have something else to contribute besides comments to this one meme, by all means...

Do you think commenting on a meme generator site is contributing? You're even more useless than I thought. As if spending all your time commenting on the Internet weren't bad enough, you only comment on a meme generator site. I can see why your dad doesn't love you