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

I need to look more into the details, and video would be a definite plus, but his defense seems to hinge on his belief that he was being shot at . . . which isn't true. He wasn't being shot at.

 

This post is racist.

 

As I noted before, by Wilson's own admission, he started shooting at the truck before he ever even believed he was being shot at. That's aggravated assault.

source: Will Marc Wilson’s Self-Defense Claim Hold Up In Court? (buzzfeednews.com)

The loud noise that Wilson claims might have been gunfire came after he had already opened fire on the truck.

 

If you conclude that race is "almost always a factor" just by looking at numbers then I would have to say that you are basing your conclusions on personal bias. Numbers and statistics do not tell you anything except numbers and statistics. They do not tell you the "why".

1 in 3 cows fall ill every day.

What does that tell you? Nothing but the fact that 1 in 3 cows fall ill every day. It does not tell you why. Now I could assume that they fall ill to a common cold. Safe assumption right? Oh wait...what about animal abuse? Couldn't that be a reason also? What about neglect? Couldn't that be a reason also? What if its not neglect but simply a not understanding of how to properly take care of cows? What if there is something in the environment that the owner of the cows didn't know about that is making them ill?

Numbers and statistics are useful for telling you what IS, and generally only for things that can actually be counted, IE: Physical things. They are not useful for tell you "why". And when you get into sociological issues it becomes even far more complex than my simple example of cows falling ill.

 

If only you had left it at this I would have probably /liked your post. But you had to add this...

Not only does it show a disturbing lack of historical knowledge but it is racist ta boot. Just as racist as the post that you responded to.

 

More evidence that the right to self defense is expanding.

"Self-defense is a natural right; when laws are in place that protect incompetent police by removing one’s ability to protect one’s self, simply because the aggressor has a badge and a uniform, this is a human rights violation. Indiana is leading the way by recognizing this right and creating legislation to protect it."

"The law states:

(i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:
(1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;
(2) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or
(3) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person’s possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person’s immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect."
FREE THOUGHT PROJECT, State Passes Law to Legalize Shooting Police, By Matt Agorist, February 3, 2014.
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/state-passes-law-legalize-self-defense-police/

 

My point being is it a egg/chicken thing. The aggravated assaults being DURING the commission of ANOTHER crime such as robbery or rape then malice doesn't matter. Now that could be remedied by the first two shots being a felony and then the shot the killed her was during the committing of that felony?

Perhaps not.

PART 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS. § 16-11-103 - Discharge of gun or pistol near public highway or street. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when, without legal justification, he discharges a gun or pistol on or within 50 yards of a public highway or street.

See what I mean. Will have to see if the defense can make the argument there was no predicate felony.

 

No, I'm afraid I don't see what you mean. Aggravated assault was the predicate felony that allows for the "felony murder" rule to be applied, just like it was the predicate felony that allowed Greg McMichael and William Bryan to be convicted of felony murder.

§ 16-5-21: ...(b) A person commits the offense of aggravated assault when he or she assaults: ... (4) A person or persons without legal justification by discharging a firearm from within a motor vehicle toward a person or persons. ..."

Wilson caused Haley's death via his commission of the felony of aggravated assault. That's felony murder in Georgia. The state doesn't need to prove that he was committing one felony and then committed another felony that killed Haley.

 

And as I noted above I can imagine in his defense he is going to say he wasn't shooting at them, one of the persons in the truck says the first two shots were towards the ground not towards them.

"DeLoach recounted the same detail in his testimony, saying "it looked like he was shooting at the ground at first.""

I'm not saying that defense is going to work, but I can well imagine that may be what it will be. If he can convince the jury he was not trying to hit them but he hit a bump or the truck moved and he accidentally shot the truck with the bullet killing the passenger then manslaughter. Can the prosecution convince the jury the third shot was purposely aimed at the truck? Who are they going to believe on the stand. The one witness has already claimed the 5th. The others stories have changed and they have been caught giving false information. Wilson's girlfriend, is she a bias'd witness and I have read if she has made any statements in his defense or against him like "then he said he was going to shoot them and fired the third shot". Don't know what they have and what the jury will believe.

For a conviction because it was during a crime it can't the crime itself. I was on a capital murder trial jury once, it was capital murder because they were committing another crime, robbery, when they murdered the victim. It wasn't capital murder because of the murder itself. So I can see where it might end up as a manslaughter conviction if he can't prove the self defense.

BTW it was a 17 year who took some friends to his estranged fathers trailer on the pretense they were going to retrieve his belongings. They ended up stabbing him and then set the trailer on fire, the coroner testify there was smoke in his lungs so he was still alive when they left him to burn to death. They took money and other things that did not belong to the boy so it became a capital murder, life without parole, instead of first degree murder, life with parole. The entire defense was to get the lower charge not that he didn't kill his father. I ended up being an alternate at deliberation time and the all woman jury gave him first degree because he was so young at the time. He'll serve about 30 years before he is eligible for parole.

 

Despite your case, I still maintain, as I have been taught by every lawyer, LEO, self-defense trainer, and other SMEs to whom I've had a chance to speak to or listen from that you are responsible for every round that leaves your firearm. You cited a case from a minor appellate court, in a whole different State, from 30 years ago, that didn't involve anyone dying, including the actual person who, by law, deserved to get shot in the first place.

Certainly not a precedent I'd like to hang my personal hat on if I found myself in a bonafide self-defense situation. In fact, minimizing the risk of someone behind my target is one of the primary reasons I use hollow-point ammo in my self-defense magazines (NOT CLIPS!!!!!), as FMJ will over penetrate way too far.

In any event, it's not relevant here as Rittenhouse didn't hit anyone he didn't have justification to.

 

That defense is definitely not going to work. For starters, Georgia's aggravated assault statute doesn't say the shooting has to be "at" a person, it says it has to be "toward" a person. It's somewhat subtle, but there's a difference there, and Wilson's admission that he was shooting "below the truck" certainly qualifies as "toward", and thus amounts to aggravated assault.

And again, the state doesn't have to prove malice / intent. They don't need a statement like "he said he was going to shoot them". If someone died during Wilson's commission of a felony (the aggravated assault), then it's felony murder. That's how the law works in Georgia.

 

Actually, it's not. I don't know the first thing about you, but if you are an adult living in the United States, then you are very aware, as are of us all, even if we collectively try to pretend it's not staring us in the face on "Any Given Sunday" that there are in fact distinct genetic differences in between various races that we humans come with. If I was a bit too subtle with my first clue, see: NFL, NBA, etc... Pretty much everything except hockey, it's crystal clear that black men are genetically superior to white men when it comes to sports.

Does that even imply, much less prove, that black men of a certain age tend to be more violent than people of other races and genders? Not necessarily, but it does, at the very least leave the possibility open. Of course, there's never been any serious research on the subject done, because to even suggest such a thing would cause you and those like you who see racism every they look to have a conniption fit. I suspect even writing up an outline of such a thing will get the writer fired and banned for life, so the questions remain unanswered.

And the research never will be done, because to even mention out loud that sports proves whites and blacks have different genetic traits is career suicide. So we all ignore what's right in front of our eyes as though it didn't exist.

 

You are a major part of the problem. One must recognize that there is a problem before steps can be formulated to address it. You're like the guy who thinks the red octagon shaped sign means step on the gas.

 

Statistics and numbers are extremely useful and informative tools which you choose to ignore. Your choice. Denial doesn't make it so! Plus, your example is logically, fatally flawed.

 

This guy has no case in my opinion. If he was afraid for his life, he should have just stopped. I see no excuse for firing from a moving vehicle to a moving vehicle.

 

Its rather funny that you get the part in bold from me saying "Numbers and statistics are useful for telling you what IS". Please tell me how you came to the conclusion that I ignore them when I make that kind of statement? Also my example was just an example. Made up on the spot. It wasn't a dissertation. It showed the point I was making and that was all it was meant to do. And it apparently made it well enough that you couldn't even dispute it, much less anything else I said in my post. Otherwise surely you would have tried to, instead of making an obviously flawed assumption about me and doing nothing more than saying my example was "logically fatally flawed".

I get it though. You're trying to deflect from my point. Is all good. lol

 

Again. Believing racism is true, doesn't make it not racism.

 

"Yes" or "Correct" would have saved you a whole lotta time writing that and me 15 seconds reading it...

That's all I wanted to know..

 

Passenger wasn't able to control the car to participate in the crime. You're responsible for what you hit 100%, that's going to be manslaughter at the minimum, reckless homicide likely to stick, but intentional is on the table.

 

I am not, you are.

By acknowledging race is an issue when it is not, that makes you the issue.

Bringing race into issues its not apart of, creates division and is setting us back decades in race relations. Looking at the numbers, there is no rational way to come to the conclusion race is almost aways a factor.

There is a definitely a problem and its all culture, this is acknowledged even by members of these minority groups in question. Its a culture shared by every race to some degree but is a statistical anomaly in for instance black communities. This culture has to change and it only changes from within. THAT is the problem that needs addressing.

Race has nothing to do with it, and certainly not racism.

 

I don't know that that distinction will hold up, we'll see what both sides do with it. And yes intent will be a key part. If someone died it could also be a manslaughter charge which would be easier to obtain.

 

You think a manslaughter charge is easier to prove than aggravated assault?

 

For a jury with the contradictory testimony and evidence at this point yea it could be.

 

Well, if I had 50 herds experiencing 1 sick cow out of 200, your statistic would have meaning. Otherwise, a meaningless artifact.

 

Race is always an issue. If you are to closed minded or stupid to see that, then that is on you.