Mediaboss Marketing

Marc Wilson claims he fired his gun out of self-defense after a group of teens yelled racial slurs and tried to run him off the road in Statesboro, Georgia, in June 2020. Photo courtesy of Wilson's family

Late one night in June 2020, William Marcus Wilson, a 21-year-old Black man, fired his legal handgun at a pickup truck full of teenagers after some of the teens allegedly called him a racial slur and tried to run him and his white girlfriend off the road in Statesboro, Georgia. The next day, Wilson learned that one of those bullets struck and killed 17-year-old Haley Hutcheson, who was in the backseat of the truck.

This week, Wilson, who goes by the name Marc, is on trial for felony murder and aggravated assault, which carries a life sentence and the possibility of the death penalty. Wilson and his legal team are arguing that despite the tragic events, Wilson was left with no option but to stand his ground to ensure his safety, as well as that of his girlfriend.

Me and my girlfriend were very scared that night, Wilson told a detective after the shooting. A truck full ofall I saw were white maleswhite males driving their car at me and are flipping me off and yelling racial slurs.

Self-defense claims led to acquittals for Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse and George Zimmerman, who killed Trayvon Martin. But this is a rare case of a Black man using a stand your ground defense, and the historical data does not point in his favor.

Wilsons trial is a particularly interesting case because its a dynamic of a self-defense case that we haven't seen, Melissa Redmon, the prosecutorial justice program director at the University of Georgias School of Law and a former Fulton County district attorney, told VICE News. It's something that should be watched closely to make sure that Marcus Wilson is afforded the same consideration and support that other [defendants] who have alleged self-defense have gotten.

Fearing for his life

At around 1 a.m. on June 14, 2020, Wilson and his then-girlfriend Emma Rigdon, who is white, were driving away from a Taco Bell in Statesboro. At a stoplight, they pulled up next to a pickup truck. According to Wilsons defense team, Wilson said two male teens in the truck leaned out of the window and called Rigdon a n----- -loving bitch, and shouted, Your lives dont matter!

Wilson later told police that when the light turned green, the pickup truck swerved in front of them and tried to knock his car off the road. Wilson said the males in the truck were leaning out the window screaming more racial slurs while flashing middle fingers at them.

It was just weeks after the murder of George Floyd, and Wilson said he was already feeling nervous, so he pulled out a gun and fired two warning shots at the truck.

He said he heard a loud sound that made him think they might be shooting back at him or ramming his vehicle.

Fearing for his life, Wilson said he fired his gun once more at the truck. That bullet struck and killed Hutcheson.

When Wilson found out the next day that one of the passengers of the truck had been killed, he turned himself in. He was denied bail after Ogeechee Circuit Superior Court Judge Michael Muldrew, who originally presided over the case, said Wilson posed a significant threat to the persons in the community, despite having no criminal record.

In February, Muldrew was recused from presiding over the trial; the defense claimed he met with two of the prosecuting attorneys in private and allowed them to view emails Wilson sent to his family. Muldrew was replaced with Judge Ronnie Thompson, who granted Wilson his release on a $100,000 bond.

However, Thompson ruled that Wilsons case was not airtight enough to grant him immunity from the charges under Georgias stand your ground laws.

And the teens tell a different story, one that says Wilson never had a claim to self-defense and that they did not yell out racial slurs. They told police they thought Rigdon was a classmate theyd seen earlier that night who also has a Black boyfriend. In opening statements, Chief Assistant District Attorney Barclay Black said that no matter what happened before the shooting, Wilson was wrong to escalate the encounter by using deadly force, and his decision to do so resulted in the death of an innocent person.

As we proceed through that evidence one thing is going to ring true through this whole trial, Black said Wednesday, according to the Statesboro Herald. That is no matter what gets thrown around this courtroom, no matter what fingers get pointed at anybody, Haley Hutcheson didnt do a doggone thing to anybody, except get a bullet in the back of her head.

Since the incident, the teens memories of that night have been called into question. All four admitted to drinking alcohol as they drove around town. In their investigation, police found beer cans at the scene that match the brand they were drinking, with investigators believing that the loud noise Wilson heard was likely a can that was thrown at his car. And at least one of the police reports written by a Statesboro detective reads that one of the teens, Luke Conley, was seen by a witness yelling out of his window right before the shooting.

Additionally, Conley is currently facing charges of obstruction of justice for withholding information and providing conflicting statements about who he saw in Wilsons car. A month prior to the shooting, Conley was also arrested on charges of driving under the influence and a hit-and-run. Neither case has been litigated, according to Georgia court records.

Race matters

The defense, led by former Georgia NAACP president and attorney Francys Johnson, argues that despite the tragic death of Hutcheson, Wilson responded reasonably.

This case is about how Emma Rigdon and William Marcus Wilson missed their early graves when they decided to go on a late-night run to Taco Bell, Johnson said during his opening statement Wednesday.

Since Johnson took on the case in July 2020, hes been blunt about his belief that race has played a major role in how this case has been perceived.

We believe that if Marc Wilson was a white gentlemen that night, accosted by a truckload of angry, belligerent, possibly drunk Black men, and he used a legally possessed firearm to defend himself and his passenger, that he would have been given a medal and not given a prosecution, he told reporters during a Zoom call at the time, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Data backs Johnsons belief. Stand your ground laws, which give legal gun owners the legal grounds to use deadly force when threatened regardless if there are non-lethal options available, exist in some form across 37 states, according to the Giffords Center, including in Georgia.

But from 2005 to 2010, the first five years after stand your ground laws were introduced, just 11 percent of cases involving a Black shooter invoking stand your ground and white victim were deemed justified, according to a 2020 study by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, compared to 45 percent of cases involving a Black victim and a white shooter.

One of the most famous cases of stand your ground being used successfully was in 2013, when George Zimmerman, the man who shot and killed Trayvon Martin, a Black 17-year-old who was walking home through Zimmermans neighborhood, was acquitted. Zimmerman successfully claimed he felt threatened by Martin, despite initiating the interaction by following him through the neighborhood.

And just two months after Huchesons death, in August 2020, Kyle Rittenhouse, 18, shot and killed two people and injured a third during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin. He was found not guilty on all charges including intentional homicide. The white teen successfully claimed self-defense, arguing that he had little choice but to use deadly force when confronted by protesters both at a car dealership he says he was trying to protect, and people who tried to disarm him after the initial shooting.

But that trend may be changing. Last November, Greg and Travis McMichael failed to convince a Georgia jury that they acted in self-defense when they shot and killed Ahmaud Arbery, a Black 25-year-old jogger who they suspected was a burglar in their neighborhood. They were both sentenced to life in prison.

Redmon said that the impact the Arbery case had about who can claim self-defense is very likely to loom over the jury in this case, in a way that will possibly benefit Wilson.

The McMichaels prevented Arbery from disengaging. Here, you have the exact opposite: a couple going about their business and the victims initiating the contact and being antagonistic towards them, Redmon said. When we think about self-defense, we typically think about someone coming at you and you having to defend yourself as opposed to you initiating an encounter and it [going] wrong.

But it doesnt mean that there wont be hurdles to overcome for the defense.

When someone is deceased, most citizens are going to look to what could have been done to prevent this. That's the difficulty in getting them to accept a self-defense defense in most cases, Redmon said. In this case, you have the deceased victim who in a sense was an innocent bystander in that she wasn't driving the truck.

Ultimately, it will come down to which version of events the jury will ultimately believe.

The state is going to focus on the reasonableness and whether or not that fear and his subsequent actions were reasonable, Redmon said. The other thing is the credibility and which version of events is most likely to be true. Both sides will have to convince the jury which version of events actually happened.

The jury selected to decide the case is made up of eight white males, four white females, two Black females, and one Hispanic male. The jurors range in age from 20 to 70. The trial is expected to last through to the beginning of next week.

Follow Trone Dowd on Twitter.

Continue reading here:
Black Man Charged With Murder of White Teen Says He Was Standing His Ground - VICE

I want to help people!

This is a desire that motivates all therapists in one form or another. Through direct service, we therapists help one individual, one couple, one family, and one group at a time. Depending on our caseload at any given moment, that adds up to a relatively small number compared to the number of people in our geographic region. We may also help people indirectly through teaching, supervising, writing, and consulting. These activities may help larger numbers of people, although we are less likely to see the fruits of our labors.

Through a series of chance circumstances, I had the opportunity to help, potentially, a much larger number of people. After being certified in hypnosis in 1997, I became interested in the growing academic psychological literature on virtual reality (VR). I noticed that hypnosis and VR have a number of elements in common, with both experiences giving access to alternative realities and both experiences feeling real.

While I was collaborating on research using VR, George Zimmerman was acquitted of Trayvon Martins murder. When some people responded to Black Lives Matter with white lives matter or all lives matter, I thought these comments reflected a profound lack of understanding of the lived experience of being Black in the U.S. (not that I presume to know the lived experience). I had the idea that VR could be used to help individuals understand the lived experiences of people different from themselves. I began discussing this idea with colleagues and others, offering my idea for others to do good in the world and to help people, if the idea was viable. To my surprise, a venture capitalist offered me enough money to do a proof-of-concept study to see whether the idea worked. I was thrilled. My hope was that if the data came out the way I hoped it would that I could make a difference on a bigger scale.

The study results were very promising and the reactions from participants were equally positive; we were able to change participants attitudes and deeply affect them so that they were more aware of how their biases affected others and were motivated and had new learning to treat people different from themselves more respectfully. These results left me facing a difficult choice. Should I close my practice and go full-time into the unchartered waters of building a company to provide this service as workplace training and the opportunity to make a difference on this scale, or let go of the idea and keep my practice open?

Values High

The opportunity to have a much bigger impact was enticing. In the language of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), building a company to upskill employees for respectful and inclusive behavior, and making an impact on a large scale would be a values rush or high. How could I not choose to build the company?

If youve known entrepreneurs or start-up employees through your practice or personally, you know that startups are an emotional roller coaster. Id seen it firsthand with clients and family members but living it myself was a different story. Yet I felt it was all worthwhile. What we were building was powerful and could help employees treat each other more inclusively. It felt like I was on a mission in a way Id never experienced in my professional life.

The Downs

Right as we were about to launch the company to the public and start selling our program, COVID hit, with quarantines instituted for an unknown length of time. Work for most people moved from the office to the home. We struggled to adapt and survive. We figured out how to provide the VR experience so people could access it from home without a dedicated VR headset.

As we tried to sell our product to HR and DEI (diversity, equity, & inclusion) leaders, we found ourselves competing with higher priorities - companies were trying to address work fires about COVID-related remote work, as well as the murders of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery and Brionna Taylor and how these deaths affected employees. In the end, we didnt get the traction that Id hoped for.

The Values Crash

As the companys money was running low and not enough was coming in, it was heartbreaking for me to realize that three years of work (and no income) would not come to fruition. Instead of a values rush, it was a values crash. In building the company, Id felt a thrumming sense of purpose driven by the opportunity to influence many people on a deeper level. Now, I was looking at a return to doing clinical work, helping one individual, one couple at a time. I still loved my clinical work when I had left it behind three years earlier but returning to it felt like a let-down.

To me, to use a drug analogy, it was like going from a cocaine high to drinking weak tea. A bit of caffeine just didnt cut it. I spent weeks, months, in a funk, doing an ACT values worksheet and felt that I had no valuesat least not ones to which I wanted to take committed action. The fact that COVID continued to restrict life around me probably didnt help my outlook. I knew I was grieving, but that knowledge only took me so far. I set a date for myself: come January, Id start letting people know I was re-opening my practice.

In January, though, I was still struggling to find values and meaning in clinical work. Dont get me wrong. I like doing clinical work and feel Im generally helpful to people. But running a company was like directing a musical production with a full orchestra, while working directly with clients was like directing an intimate one-or-two-person show. Each activity is rewarding, but in different ways.

Talking with friends and family helped. Time helped. And getting intellectually stimulated about clinical work helped. I am someone who likes to do a deep dive into training and to learn a new set of skills or approach every few years. Three professional opportunities helped get me really excited about returning to clinical work.

Acceptance and Commitment TherapyI had it in my sights to get more training in ACT, an approach to therapy that, in part, helps people articulate and then live their values. It seemed an apt fit, given my values crash. I had the good fortune to be accepted into an ACT peer consultation training group with experienced clinicians. This wonderful group of clinicians and the training spurred me to think about my eclectic approach in a deeper way. I became excited to use the ACT approach and techniques with clients.

Discernment CounselingI also had the good fortune to watch videos of Bill Doherty, Ph.D. doing Discernment Counseling with a couple. Discernment Counseling is a specific modality for couples in which one or both spouses are considering divorce. The goal is to help the couple get clarity and confidence in the path theyd like to take their relationship. Id received this training before starting my company but stopped when I closed my practice. What an honor to learn from him! The videos left me re-engaged and eager to see more couples for discernment counseling.

Ethical Lives of ClientsThe third professional opportunity was hearing Bill Doherty speak about his recent book, which focuses on the ethical lives of clients that we, as therapists trained in an individualist culture, may not see or address. Reading his book and discussing his ideas with colleagues brought my systems training closer to the forefront, leading me to think more deeply about the ethical dilemmas our clients face that they may or may not see, and how to raise those issues.

Value Reflection

Although there are things Id have done differently with my company, Im proud of the work we did, and of what I learned. I know enough about the failure rate of startups to know that Im in good company with the failure of my company.

Im also thankful that I had the opportunity to re-find and re-commit to the values that initially led me to become a clinical psychologist and psychotherapist. Its exciting to be re-energized by the work as well as intellectually stimulated.

Useful References

Virtual Superheroes: Using Superpowers in Virtual Reality to Encourage Prosocial Behavior

Using Virtual Reality to Encourage Prosocial Behavior

VR for Civility Training: Envisioning a More Respectful Workplace

File under:

Here is the original post:
Re-Directing Clinical Passion: Benefits and Pitfalls - Psychotherapy.net

Before LIV Golf and its obscene amounts of oil money made lots of ordinary golfers into nihilistic heels, Patrick Reed stood alone as the most disliked man on the PGA Tour. Dating back to his college days at Georgia, before he was dismissed from the golf team and went to Augusta State, he was suspected by his teammates of being a cheater and a thief. As a pro, the cheating reputation became even more pronounced, especially after an incident where he was penalized for moving sand to improve his lie in 2019, as well as a controversial drop he took at a tournament he won last year.

Reed, who peaked in 2018 with a Masters win and a top-five U.S. Open finish, ditched the PGA Tour for LIV in June. But, evidently unsatisfied with the Saudi mountain of cash, Reed has now hit back at one of his critics by hiring a clown of a lawyer for an absurd $750 million lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on Tuesday.

The suit, which can be read in all its glory here, alleges defamation by Golf Channel and one of its commentators, Brandel Chamblee. Chamblee has expressed strong negative feelings against LIV Golf, Mohammed bin Salman, and those who align themselves with this sportswashing venture, and hes also singled out Reed in the past for his rules controversies. His comments are very clearly all opinions, or reporting on what other people say, and cannot be considered defamation by any serious person. They have, however, led to this very fun rebuttal from Reed, which is pretty indicative of the corner that so many LIV golfers have backed themselves into.

Mr. Reed has never accepted blood money, and in no way supports terrorism and/or human rights violations, or murder, the lawsuit says.

If the suits consistent confusing of its and its wasnt enough to ridicule it, Reeds choice of lawyer certainly does the job. Larry Klayman, a long-disgraced litigator who doesnt get out of bed in the morning without filing a civil suit, was perhaps the only man antsy and shameless enough to take on such a pointless and frivolous task. Klaymans already attempted a class-action suit against the PGA Tour for its suspension of LIV golfers, but his more despicable greatest hits include an unending obsession with the lie that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim born outside the U.S., a claim that Black Lives Matter is responsible for igniting a race war, and other unsuccessful defamation lawsuits filed on behalf of such characters as George Zimmerman, Roy Moore, and Joe Arpaio. If Reed is concerned by the perception that hes an unscrupulous jerk who will keep company with anyone wholl help him make a buck, he certainly isnt clearing his name by aligning himself with Klayman.

Hopefully this suit will be quickly dismissed, but what will stick with me much longer than its arrogance is page seven, which includes a massive list of heckles that people have allegedly shouted at Reed while hes golfed. As the lawsuit so eloquently notes, These personal attacks occur frequently while Mr. Reed is actively preparing to make his golf shot, or during the golf shot, much less thereafter as he is walking to his next golf shot, as well as lining up and making putts on the green, which putts require a high degree of concentration. Here they are in order:

Now that we know Reed is trigger-happy with defamation lawsuits, it might be wise to take some care when interacting with him. So when Patrick Reed is actively preparing to make his golf shot, or during the golf shot, much less thereafter as he is walking to his next golf shot, as well as lining up and making putts on the green, which putts require a high degree of concentration, please do not yell at him, Why dont you introduce your children to their grandparents you ungrateful bitch?!

See the original post here:
A List Of All The Ways Fans Heckle Accused Cheater Patrick Reed - Defector

The Forum recently published a story by Matt Henson, Expert: North Dakota's new 'stand-your-ground' law does not apply to officers . Reading this article, it seems that the intended message is to say that police officers have stricter rules of when they get to kill people, compared to ordinary citizens. Thats not true.

The article does say that our new stand your ground law (passed in 2021, which loosens use of force rules) does not apply to police officers, which is technically true, but misleading. What these laws do is remove the duty to retreat. This means that someone has to be backed into a corner before they can fight back. The article is misleading because police have never had this duty to retreat to begin with. You cant remove something that isnt there.

Back in 2012, 'stand-your-ground' laws made national headlines after George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. This was the initial event that sparked the whole Black Lives Matter movement. The law never applied to this case because Zimmerman was laying on the ground, which counts as being backed into a corner. But nonetheless, the media ran with the narrative that these laws allow people to shoot first, ask questions later. That is definitely not true.

Readers may be wondering at this point, When is it legal to kill people? The answer to that question is, Almost never Almost.

The rules for deadly use of force are very strict, and they continue to be very strict even with these new 'stand-your-ground' laws. First and foremost, the defenders life must be in imminent peril. You cannot take someone elses life if your own is not currently being threatened. A deadly threat that has since passed, or a hypothetical threat in the future, is not good enough.

For example, last year in Fargo, a man robbed half a dozen stores in the span of a couple days. His crime spree ended when he got to a pawn shop and the clerk pulled his own gun, causing the robber to flee. After the robber fled, the threat against the clerk was over, but the clerk chased after him and shot at his getaway car. Prosecutors charged the clerk and he pleaded guilty to reckless endangerment. What he did is not allowed under North Dakotas deadly force law, despite being the victim of an attempted robbery.

Second, you cannot be the initial aggressor in the fight. For example, if you try to rob someone, and they pull their own gun to defend themselves, but you shoot first, that is not protected by the law. The right to self-defense applies to innocent victims, not the perpetrators of crime.

Third, you cannot use more force than is necessary under the circumstances. For example, if someone is punching you in the face and you would be otherwise justified in defending yourself, you dont get to pull out a gun and shoot them. Deadly force can only be used to stop a deadly threat. If you want to defend yourself from that situation, get pepper spray. The law values the life of a criminal more than your bloody nose.

The law is a bit more complicated than that, but broadly speaking, those are the rules. In some states, there is a fourth rule that you have to run away if that option is available to you; this is the duty to retreat. Removing this fourth rule does not change the other three rules. To call these new laws shoot first, ask questions later is a malicious misrepresentation of the facts. The Forum didnt say that but other media companies do.

The purpose of this letter was to point out the rules for police use of force are a bit different. Those first three rules still apply, but police have never had a duty to retreat, even without the new law. I did say police are allowed to use deadly force in more circumstances than ordinary citizens. For example, police are allowed to use deadly force against a fleeing suspect after the commission of a violent felony, and the suspect is likely to endanger the public unless apprehended without delay.

Ordinary citizens cant do that. You dont get to be a vigilante.

The rules for police are still pretty strict. But when The Forum implies citizens have it easier than police because we recently passed "stand-your-ground," thats not true.

Note: Im not a lawyer.

William Smith lives in Fargo.

This letter does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Forum's editorial board nor Forum ownership.

See the original post here:
Letter: What is a 'stand-your-ground' law? - INFORUM

The saga of Emmett Till has once again returned to the public sphere.

Till was a 14-year-old boy from Chicago who was visiting relatives in Tallahatchie County, Mississippi, during the summer of 1955. He was kidnapped under cover at night, mercilessly beaten, shot, and thrown into the Tallahatchie River for having the supposed audacity to flirt with a white woman.

Carolyn Bryant asserted Till grabbed her while making lewd, crude and profane comments, which included whistling toward her. She testified to this before an all-white jury during the trial of her husband, Roy Bryant, and his half-brother, J.W. Milam. She later recanted that part of her story.

So why are we discussing Tills legacy again? Because last month, a team reportedly found an unserved warrant charging Bryant in Tills 1955 kidnapping, and his relatives want authorities to arrest her. Unfortunately, the Justice Department officially closed its investigation into Tills murder back in December, denying his family the justice they have long sought.

There is much written history that highlights the grim and terrorizing reality for Black people in the South during this largely oppressive era. An all-white, all-male Southern jury in mid-20th century Mississippi had absolutely no intention of convicting two white men for murdering a young teenage Black boy, despite absolute evidence of their guilt. In fact, in closing arguments, the defense made the case that, as white, Anglo-Saxon men, they had a conscientious duty to render a not-guilty verdict.

Tills murder was a prime example of how Black men have long been targets of pathological paranoia, hatred and malice. Black men (in the case of Till, a child), have been seen as particularly dangerous to the safety of white women. Truth be told, we have seen this sort of adultifying of Black children time and time again. Tamir Rice, the 12-year-old pre-teen from Cleveland who was shot by police within seconds of the officers arriving on the scene, was thought by cops to be maybe 20. Seventeen-year-old Trayvon Martin, who was murdered by unhinged vigilante criminal George Zimmerman, was referred to as a 20-something guy.

More than a few bodies of Black men (often innocent) were strung up on trees and burned alive, with body parts chopped off and sold as souvenirs to mentally unhinged spectators who took sadistic delight in such a horrid spectacle. Oftentimes, it was based on the claims of a white woman, whose words (regardless of their truth) took precedence over the rights and dignity of a Black person. Its impossible to know how many Black people lost their lives due to false accusations.

Recently, the Mississippi Center for Investigative Reporting obtained a copy of an unpublished memoir by Bryant, who now goes by Carolyn Donham, in which she reportedly wrote that she sees herself as much as a victim as Emmett Till! Talk about adding insult to injury, or rather murder.

Today, Bryant is 89 years old. Despite the fact that she is an octogenarian, Bryant and anyone else still alive who contributed to this horrid event should face some sort of justice. Tills decades-old blood remains on her hands, and possibly those of others. The case is a sad reflection of what all too often actually occurred during this most dark and sordid era of American history.

Elwood Watson is a professor of history, Black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University. He is also an author and public speaker.

Read more:
Justice remains elusive in Till's murder | | dailyitem.com - Sunbury Daily Item