Georgia Black Man Charged with Murder Claims He Shot at White Teens in Self-Defense

I am wondering the same, do not know yet, not sure they tested him, but would explain the swerving, especially based on that link

the driver may have taken it too personally, when it was just drunk kids swerving and would have happened to anyone that was there

the best move would have been to remain calm, slow down, call the cops (have the girlfriend try to take a picture of the license plate)

 

Yes, a car could be a weapon. If they had actually struck his vehicle, or were running people over like in Waukesha, he might have a claim for reasonably being in fear for his life. His problem is that none of that happened. The "threatening" vehicle never even touched his, and he was already firing "warning shots" at it. He's going to prison for a very long time.

 

Well I can identify with your conditions. Can you identify with the fact I was being harrassed by someone on a lonely mountain 2 lane rd. alone with my wife and when I stopped my truck, instead of going around me, he and his buddies sat there too a couple feet off my bumper. So what was I to do, react to his plans? The reason I brought this situation up, when driving, an automobile could be a weapon. KC lights on the roof of a pickup shining down can completely blind you. Someone as bold as this boy was could probably be armed with anything. What should a person wait til his eyes adjust to the blinding light to see? No I did what I had to do. It is not like just being annoyed with high beams. I tolerate that all the time.

 

You mean like this guy:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ex-sc...r-for-shooting-18-year-old-mom-mona-rodriguez

 

Well I am not deciding this case. I know for a fact you sure as hell won't be on the jury. I will just wait and see what happens.

 

yep, cops do this and often get away with it, even get paid leave

 

Correct. But you’re also in the same weapon and have to prove you couldn’t make a right turn. They weren’t walking along and a truck tried to run them over, so he shot through the windshield to stop them. They weren’t on foot with no where to run to. So he’s driving and shooting 1/2 blind out his window and hit a passenger in the back seat. How was that stopping the person with the weapon? She wasn’t driving. She didn’t have a weapon.

No 911. No warning shot. No proof they tried to even run them off the road. Non proof he tried to get away. Just his “word”. Jussie Smollet had a word too. Too bad it didn’t make that much sense either.

Like I said before, I’ll happily await more details before making any real judgments. But I’d like to hear the other side of the story first.

 

You're are another that won't make that jury. I'll just wait and see. There is a history of the news misreporting or not having all the evidence.

 

But you've already made up your mind! You're just another individual (third one) that won't make this jury!!

 

this is the thing that helps him, was this witness one of the passengers in the truck?

https://abcnews4.com/news/local/geo...n-statesboro-murder-case-with-lowcountry-ties

"Included in the 20-page supplemental report, a witness said that they saw Luke Conley hanging outside of the truck, yelling at Wilson and his girlfriend, and there’s evidence that an object was thrown at the vehicle moments before the shooting."

the judge ordered a gag order, so will be hard to get more information until the trial

 

Did Wilson know they didn't have a gun? Let's say for arguments sake, he felt threatened. Is he obligated to ask them if they are armed and is he supposed to take their answer at face value?

And it doesn't have to result in a carjacking. If they indeed swerve into their lane trying to run them off the road, that is dangerous and can cause bodily injury.

 

Lol so if I throw something at your car you have the right to murder me?

 

I think people can die from you doing that, so you should not do that

but I also think calling 911 is the appropriate thing to do, but Republicans seems to support stand your ground

wasn't it a beer can they tossed, were they drinking?

 

The likelyhood of dying from that is very low.

The idea thats going to justify him murdering is also very low.

We do like the idea of standing your ground in a reasonable manner. Dems inability to understand there are shades of grey is their own problem.

 

I would of said the same about a person carrying an ar-15 around shooting someone... so never know what the jury will decide

both were big legal risks, I would have chosen to avoid those situations, but what do I know

 

As far as I know, he didn't have any prior. Some of the passengers did though and admitted they were drinking before the incident

 

Which is completely unreasonable considering all the the facts of the KR case. You overly simplify it to support your nonsensical argument. He didnt just carry it around and shoot someone, there is tons of nuance there you purposefully ignore.

But yes, a jury will decide though the only rational perspective to hold is...it wont justify his claim to self defense.

Both being legal risks doesn't make them the same lol. Again, the world doesn't exist in black and white as liberals would have you believe

 

he chose to carry an ar-15, which I consider a threatening move, you're free to disagree

this driver choose to pull a gun, when calling 911 would have been the better option

the people in the truck also did stupid things

the people that chased kyle because they thought he was an active shooter did stupid things

in both case, they may win legally, but I still would not choose to do the same

 

My mirrors have electronic darkening and my truck has a manual dimmer, the side mirrors can be adjusted or simple avoided in the cab.. I personally wouldn't have stopped simply because when it's bad even the car behind is having difficulty with vision.. I dunno, I have had people piggyback me because the weather is so bad you can't pass! So understandably people pile up, in fact their is a pass here "Elk Mountain" where frequent 20+ pile ups happen because vision becomes so bad it's normal that traffic eventually tightens up and the inevitable pile up happens..

Clearly I have delt with a bit more and for longer then you, and I have never felt the need to stop and threaten anyone driving in the same conditions I was for following to close and have running lights and high beams on, it's annoying but not to the point a gun threat is merited *Shrugs*

 

Considering carrying an AR-15 a threatening move is nonsensical but you are free to hold that perspective.

They chose to attack and attempt to kill Kyle because they are antifa thugs and didnt like him trying to help stop the destruction they were causing. Luckily, Kyle came out on top as the better man.

You leave out nuance from both cases because it helps you justify nonsense perspectives. Nuance matters, and its part of why the left is losing support, and in the long term will continue to do so most likely. Nuance matters, context matters, details matter. The world isn't black and white, but it appears the left is incapable, or atleast refuses to see that.

And I doubt in this case his claim will work.

 

It would be a KEY part of the defense and proving self-defense don't ya think. ALL the proof needed no, but a KEY part of that self defense. The question here is can he prove it to the satisfaction of a jury. I have no idea what all the evidence the police have or will find yet.

 

I don't think we have the evidence yet to make such determinations beyond a reasonable doubt or even by the weight of it. And I assure you that if he can prove they tried to run him off the road that will be KEY to his defense. Especially if they threatened him that they were going to harm him in any way before they did it. Can he PROVE IT, is what remains to be seem.

 

I don't think you understand. Even if he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the DRIVER tried to run him off the road, that does NOT justify him shooting the PASSENGER.

 

when a cop shoots at a car and hits a passenger, rather than the driver, is the same true?

 

You can't legally shoot someone because you "didn't know they didn't have a gun". A reasonable person would not feel their life was in danger because of that uncertainty. And that's what Wilson has to convince a jury of: that a reasonable person would feel that their life was in danger in his circumstances. What has he got to help accomplish that? He claims they yelled mean things at him. Is that going to do it? Nope. He claims that they threw a beer can at his vehicle. Is that going to do it? Nope. He claims that they swerved at his vehicle. Is that going to do it? Nope.

And then there's the other huge obstacle to his defense: He shot the WRONG person. The prosecutor is going to throw up pictures of the cute, sweet-and-innocent-looking white girl he murdered and he's going to burn in hell:



PROTIP: If you want to claim self defense, don't shoot the wrong person, and especially don't shoot a teenage girl.