And it was long enough that he fired his 5 shots slowly, there was a pause, and the guy in the car can be heard returning fire. It's pretty clear that if the person had their pistol out and were threatening people, he sure as heck wouldn't have gotten off 5 shots and then a pause before return fire.

Indicates that as the driver was hearing the shots go off, they took cover and reached for their pistol wherever they kept it in the car. In any case, it's pretty clear that there was no justification for Garrett shooting first. Even when they tried to say the driver was threatening people with his car, the driver was actually surrounded and stopped. Meaning there was no justification there either for firing the AK first.

I know that they will try to burn the driver, but there's just too much evidence in the scenario that says Garrett had no cause to fire first. Even if it was just bad trigger discipline and he accidentally fired the AK, the driver would still be justified.

I think the most likely scenario is Garrett was power tripping from walking around open carrying. He felt like Mr. Badass with his open carry and black girlfriend next to him in a wheelchair. Him pushing her, showed the others that he was on their side, and I bet he got a lot of circle jerking from others for it, which stroked his ego to an extreme degree. A white man in a BLM "protest", pushing a legless armless black woman, while open carrying?! That's like the holy leftist/communist/SJW trifecta of ego tripping, virtue signaling, and circle jerking. The guy was probably soo high off of it, he might as well have been on cocaine.

He thought he was all that was right and good, which warped his brain, so when he approached the driver threatening them, something happened to where Garrett shot first. People there say they "think" it's because the driver pointed a gun at his quadriplegic girlfriend (if you have to say "you think" when you were there, you weren't a witness), which is an absolutely ridiculous claim that clearly deserves scrutiny, because why the hell would a driver point a gun at a woman in a wheelchair with no arms and legs, with a guy standing next to her with an AK? Sounds wholesale made up.

It's actually pretty clear from just the timing of the shots alone, that the driver did not have a gun in their hand when the AK shots were fired, otherwise it wouldn't have taken soo long for them to return fire, and they would have most likely started shooting first as he was raising the gun up, so that's clearly not what happened.

And it was long enough that he fired his 5 shots slowly, there was a pause, and the guy in the car can be heard returning fire. It's pretty clear that if the person had their pistol out and were threatening people, he sure as heck wouldn't have gotten off 5 shots and then a pause before return fire.

Indicates that as the driver was hearing the shots go off, they took cover and reached for their pistol wherever they kept it in the car. In any case, it's pretty clear that there was no justification for Garrett shooting first. Even when they tried to say the driver was threatening people with his car, the driver was actually surrounded and stopped. Meaning there was no justification there either for firing the AK first.

I know that they will try to burn the driver, but there's just too much evidence in the scenario that says Garrett had no cause to fire first. Even if it was just bad trigger discipline and he accidentally fired the AK, the driver would still be justified.

I think the most likely scenario is Garrett was power tripping from walking around open carrying. He felt like Mr. Badass with his open carry and black girlfriend next to him in a wheelchair. Him pushing her, showed the others that he was on their side, and I bet he got a lot of circle jerking from others for it, which stroked his ego to an extreme degree. A white man in a BLM "protest", pushing a legless armless black woman, while open carrying?! That's like the holy leftist/communist/SJW trifecta of ego tripping, virtue signaling, and circle jerking. The guy was probably soo high off of it, he might as well have been on cocaine.

He thought he was all that was right and good, which warped his brain, so when he approached the driver threatening them, something happened to where Garrett shot first. People there say they "think" it's because the driver pointed a gun at his quadriplegic girlfriend (if you have to say "you think" when you were there, you weren't a witness), which is an absolutely ridiculous claim that clearly deserves scrutiny, because why the hell would a driver point a gun at a woman in a wheelchair with no arms and legs, standing next to a guy with an AK? Sounds wholesale made up.

It's actually pretty clear from just the timing of the shots alone, that the driver did not have a gun in their hand when the AK shots were fired, otherwise it wouldn't have taken soo long for them to return fire, and they would have most likely started shooting first as he was raising the gun up, so that's clearly not what happened.

And it was long enough that he fired his 5 shots slowly, there was a pause, and the guy in the car can be heard returning fire. It's pretty clear that if the person had their pistol out and were threatening people, he sure as heck wouldn't have gotten off 5 shots and then a pause before return fire.

Indicates that as the driver was hearing the shots go off, they took cover and reached for their pistol wherever they kept it in the car. In any case, it's pretty clear that there was no justification for Garrett shooting first. Even when they tried to say the driver was threatening people with his car, the driver was actually surrounded and stopped. Meaning there was no justification there either for firing the AK first.

I know that they will try to burn the driver, but there's just too much evidence in the scenario that says Garrett had no cause to fire first. Even if it was just bad trigger discipline and he accidentally fired the AK, the driver would still be justified.

I think the most likely scenario is Garrett was power tripping from walking around open carrying. He felt like Mr. Badass with his open carry and black girlfriend next to him in a wheelchair. Him pushing her, showed the others that he was on their side, and I bet he got a lot of circle jerking from others for it, which stroked his ego to an extreme degree. A white man in a BLM "protest", pushing a legless armless black woman, while open carrying?! That's like the holy leftist/communist/SJW trifecta of ego tripping, virtue signaling, and circle jerking.

He thought he was all that was right and good, which warped his brain, so when he approached the driver threatening them, something happened to where Garrett shot first. People there say they "think" it's because the driver pointed a gun at his quadriplegic girlfriend (if you have to say "you think" when you were there, you weren't a witness), which is an absolutely ridiculous claim that clearly deserves scrutiny, because why the hell would a driver point a gun at a woman in a wheelchair with no arms and legs, standing next to a guy with an AK? Sounds wholesale made up.

It's actually pretty clear from just the timing of the shots alone, that the driver did not have a gun in their hand when the AK shots were fired, otherwise it wouldn't have taken soo long for them to return fire, and they would have most likely started shooting first as he was raising the gun up, so that's clearly not what happened.

And it was long enough that he fired his 5 shots slowly, there was a pause, and the guy in the car can be heard returning fire. It's pretty clear that if the person had their pistol out and were threatening people, he sure as heck wouldn't have gotten off 5 shots and then a pause before return fire.

Indicates that as the driver was hearing the shots go off, they took cover and reached for their pistol wherever they kept it in the car. In any case, it's pretty clear that there was no justification for Garrett shooting first. Even when they tried to say the driver was threatening people with his car, the driver was actually surrounded and stopped. Meaning there was no justification there either for firing the AK first.

I know that they will try to burn the driver, but there's just too much evidence in the scenario that says Garrett had no cause to fire first. Even if it was just bad trigger discipline and he accidentally fired the AK, the driver would still be justified.

I think the most likely scenario is Garrett was power tripping from walking around open carrying. He felt like Mr. Badass with his open carry and black girlfriend next to him in a wheelchair. Him pushing her, showed the others that he was on their side, and I bet he got a lot of circle jerking from others for it, which stroked his ego to an extreme degree. A white man in a BLM "protest", pushing a legless armless black woman, while open carrying?! That's like the holy leftist/communist/SJW trifecta of ego tripping, virtue signaling, and circle jerking.

He thought he was all that was right and good, which warped his brain, so when he approached the driver threatening them, something happened to where Garrett shot first. People there say they "think" it's because the driver pointed a gun at his quadriplegic girlfriend (if you have to say "you think" when you were there, you weren't a witness), which is an absolutely ridiculous claim that clearly deserves scrutiny, because why the hell would a driver point a gun at a woman in a wheelchair with no arms and legs, standing next to a guy with an AK? Sounds wholesale made up.

It's actually pretty clear from just the timing of the shots alone, that the driver did not have a gun in their hand when the AK shots were fired, otherwise it wouldn't have taken soo long for them to return fire, and they would have most likely started shooting first as he was raising the gun up, so that's clearly not what happened.

And it was long enough that he fired his 5 shots slowly, there was a pause, and the guy in the car can be heard returning fire. It's pretty clear that if the person had their pistol out and were threatening people, he sure as heck wouldn't have gotten off 5 shots and then a pause before return fire.

Indicates that as the driver was hearing the shots go off, they took cover and reached for their pistol wherever they kept it in the car. In any case, it's pretty clear that there was no justification for Garrett shooting first. Even when they tried to say the driver was threatening people with his car, the driver was actually surrounded and stopped. Meaning there was no justification there either for firing the AK first.

I know that they will try to burn the driver, but there's just too much evidence in the scenario that says Garrett had no cause to fire first. Even if it was just bad trigger discipline and he accidentally fired the AK, the driver would still be justified.

I think the most likely scenario is Garrett was power tripping from walking around open carrying. He felt like Mr. Badass with his open carry and black girlfriend next to him in a wheelchair. Him pushing her, showed the others that he was on their side, and I bet he got a lot of circle jerking from others for it, which stroked his ego to an extreme degree. A white man in a black lives matter "protest", pushing a legless armless black woman, while open carrying?! That's like the holy leftist/communist/SJW trifecta of ego tripping, virtue signaling, and circle jerking.

He thought he was all that was right and good, which warped his brain, so when he approached the driver threatening them, something happened to where Garrett shot first. People there say they "think" it's because the driver pointed a gun at his quadriplegic girlfriend (if you have to say "you think" when you were there, you weren't a witness), which is an absolutely ridiculous claim that clearly deserves scrutiny, because why the hell would a driver point a gun at a woman in a wheelchair with no arms and legs, standing next to a guy with an AK? Sounds wholesale made up.

It's actually pretty clear from just the timing of the shots alone, that the driver did not have a gun in their hand when the AK shots were fired, otherwise it wouldn't have taken soo long for them to return fire, and they would have most likely started shooting first as he was raising the gun up, so that's clearly not what happened.

And it was long enough that he fired his 5 shots slowly, there was a pause, and the guy in the car can be heard returning fire. It's pretty clear that if the person had their pistol out and were threatening people, he sure as heck wouldn't have gotten off 5 shots and then a pause before return fire.

Indicates that as the driver was hearing the shots go off, they took cover and reached for their pistol wherever they kept it in the car. In any case, it's pretty clear that there was no justification for Garrett shooting first. Even when they tried to say the driver was threatening people with his car, the driver was actually surrounded and stopped. Meaning there was no justification there either for firing the AK first.

I know that they will try to burn the driver, but there's just too much evidence in the scenario that says Garrett had no cause to fire first. Even if it was just bad trigger discipline and he accidentally fired the AK, the driver would still be justified.

I think the most likely scenario is Garrett was power tripping from walking around open carrying. He felt like Mr. Badass with his open carry and black girlfriend next to him in a wheelchair. Him pushing her, showed the others that he was on their side, and I bet he got a lot of circle jerking from other commies for it, which stroked his ego to an extreme degree. A white man in a black lives matter "protest", pushing a legless armless black woman, while open carrying? That's like the holy leftist/communist/SJW trifecta of ego tripping, virtue signaling, and circle jerking.

He thought he was all that was right and good, which warped his brain, so when he approached the driver threatening them, something happened to where Garrett shot first. People there say they "think" it's because the driver pointed a gun at his quadriplegic girlfriend (if you have to say "you think" when you were there, you weren't a witness), which is an absolutely ridiculous claim that clearly deserves scrutiny, because why the hell would a driver point a gun at a woman in a wheelchair with no arms and legs, standing next to a guy with an AK? Sounds wholesale made up.

It's actually pretty clear from just the timing of the shots alone, that the driver did not have a gun in their hand when the AK shots were fired, otherwise it wouldn't have taken soo long for them to return fire, and they would have most likely started shooting first as he was raising the gun up, so that's clearly not what happened.

And it was long enough that he fired his 5 shots slowly, there was a pause, and the guy in the car can be heard returning fire. It's pretty clear that if the person had their pistol out and were threatening people, he sure as heck wouldn't have gotten off 5 shots and then a pause before return fire.

Indicates that as the driver was hearing the shots go off, they took cover and reached for their pistol wherever they kept it in the car. In any case, it's pretty clear that there was no justification for Garrett shooting first. Even when they tried to say the driver was threatening people with his car, the driver was actually surrounded and stopped. Meaning there was no justification there either for firing the AK first.

I know that they will try to burn the driver, but there's just too much evidence in the scenario that says Garrett had no cause to fire first. Even if it was just bad trigger discipline and he accidentally fired the AK, the driver would still be justified.

I think the most likely scenario is Garrett was power tripping from walking around open carrying. He felt like Mr. Badass with his open carry and black girlfriend next to him in a wheelchair. Him pushing her, showed the others that he was on their side, and I bet he got a lot of circle jerking from other commies for it, which stroked his ego to an extreme degree.

He thought he was all that was right and good, which warped his brain, so when he approached the driver threatening them, something happened to where Garrett shot first. People there say they "think" it's because the driver pointed a gun at his quadriplegic girlfriend (if you have to say "you think" when you were there, you weren't a witness), which is an absolutely ridiculous claim that clearly deserves scrutiny, because why the hell would a driver point a gun at a woman in a wheelchair with no arms and legs, standing next to a guy with an AK? Sounds wholesale made up.

It's actually pretty clear from just the timing of the shots alone, that the driver did not have a gun in their hand when the AK shots were fired, otherwise it wouldn't have taken soo long for them to return fire, and they would have most likely started shooting first as he was raising the gun up, so that's clearly not what happened.

And it was long enough that he fired his 5 shots slowly, there was a pause, and the guy in the car can be heard returning fire. It's pretty clear that if the person had their pistol out and were threatening people, he sure as heck wouldn't have gotten off 5 shots and then a pause before return fire.

Indicates that as the driver was hearing the shots go off, they took cover and reached for their pistol wherever they kept it in the car. In any case, it's pretty clear that there was no justification for Garrett shooting first. Even when they tried to say the driver was threatening people with his car, the driver was actually surrounded and stopped. Meaning there was no justification there either for firing the AK first.

I know that they will try to burn the driver, but there's just too much evidence in the scenario that says Garrett had no cause to fire first. Even if it was just bad trigger discipline and he accidentally fired the AK, the driver would still be justified.

I think the most likely scenario is Garrett was power tripping from walking around open carrying. He felt like Mr. Badass with his open carry and black girlfriend next to him in a wheelchair. Him pushing her, showed the others that he was on their side, and I bet he got a lot of circle jerking from other commies for it, which stroked his ego to an extreme degree.

He thought he was all that was right and good, which warped his brain, so when he approached the driver threatening them, something happened to where Garrett shot first. People there say they "think" it's because the driver pointed a gun at his quadriplegic girlfriend (if you have to say "you think" when you were there, you weren't a witness), which is an absolutely ridiculous claim that clearly deserves scrutiny, because why the hell would a driver point a gun at a woman in a wheelchair with no arms and legs, standing next to a guy with an AK? Sounds wholesale made up. It's actually pretty clear from just the timing of the shots alone, that the driver did not have a gun in their hand when the AK shots were fired, otherwise it wouldn't have taken soo long for them to return fire.

And it was long enough that he fired his 5 shots slowly, there was a pause, and the guy in the car can be heard returning fire. It's pretty clear that if the person had their pistol out and were threatening people, he sure as heck wouldn't have gotten off 5 shots and then a pause before return fire.

Indicates that as the driver was hearing the shots go off, they took cover and reached for their pistol wherever they kept it in the car. In any case, it's pretty clear that there was no justification for Garrett shooting first. Even when they tried to say the driver was threatening people with his car, the driver was actually surrounded and stopped. Meaning there was no justification there either for firing the AK first.

I know that they will try to burn the driver, but there's just too much evidence in the scenario that says Garrett had no cause to fire first. Even if it was just bad trigger discipline and he accidentally fired the AK, the driver would still be justified.

I think the most likely scenario is Garrett was power tripping from walking around open carrying. He felt like Mr. Badass with his open carry and black girlfriend next to him in a wheelchair. Him pushing her, showed the others that he was on their side, and I bet he got a lot of circle jerking from other commies for it, which stroked his ego to an extreme degree.

He thought he was all that was right and good, which warped his brain, so when he approached the driver threatening them, something happened to where Garrett shot first. People there say they "think" it's because the driver pointed a gun at his quadriplegic girlfriend (if you have to say "you think" when you were there, you weren't a witness), which is an absolutely ridiculous claim that clearly deserves scrutiny, because why the hell would a driver point a gun at a woman in a wheelchair with no arms and legs, standing next to a guy with an AK? Sounds wholesale made up. It's actually pretty clear from just the timing of the shots alone, that the driver did not have a gun in their hand when the AK shots were fired, otherwise it wouldn't have taken soo long for them to return fire.

I think there was an argument with the driver and Garret lost hgi

And it was long enough that he fired his 5 shots slowly, there was a pause, and the guy in the car can be heard returning fire. It's pretty clear that if the person had their pistol out and were threatening people, he sure as heck wouldn't have gotten off 5 shots and then a pause before return fire.

Indicates that as the driver was hearing the shots go off, they took cover and reached for their pistol wherever they kept it in the car. In any case, it's pretty clear that there was no justification for Garrett shooting first. Even when they tried to say the driver was threatening people with his car, the driver was actually surrounded and stopped. Meaning there was no justification there either for firing the AK first.

I know that they will try to burn the driver, but there's just too much evidence in the scenario that says Garrett had no cause to fire first. Even if it was just bad trigger discipline and he accidentally fired the AK, the driver would still be justified.

I think the most likely scenario is Garrett was power tripping from walking around open carrying. He felt like Mr. Badass with his open carry and black girlfriend next to him in a wheelchair. Him pushing her, showed the others that he was on their side, and I bet he got a lot of circle jerking from other commies for it, which stroked his ego to an extreme degree.

He thought he was all that was right and good, which warped his brain, so when he approached the driver threatening them, something happened to where Garrett shot first. People there say they "think" it's because the driver pointed a gun at his quadriplegic girlfriend (if you have to say "you think" when you were there, you weren't a witness), which is an absolutely ridiculous claim that clearly deserves scrutiny, because why the hell would a driver point a gun at a woman in a wheelchair with no arms and legs, standing next to a guy with an AK? Sounds wholesale made up. It's actually pretty clear from just the timing of the shots alone, that the driver did not have a gun in their hand when the AK shots were fired, otherwise it wouldn't have taken soo long for them to return fire.

And it was long enough that he fired his 5 shots slowly, there was a pause, and the guy in the car can be heard returning fire. It's pretty clear that if the person had their pistol out and were threatening people, he sure as heck wouldn't have gotten off 5 shots and then a pause before return fire.

Indicates that as the driver was hearing the shots go off, they took cover and reached for their pistol wherever they kept it in the car. In any case, it's pretty clear that there was no justification for Garrett shooting first. Even when they tried to say the driver was threatening people with his car, the driver was actually surrounded and stopped. Meaning there was no justification there either for firing the AK first.

I know that they will try to burn the driver, but there's just too much evidence in the scenario that says Garrett had no cause to fire first. Even if it was just bad trigger discipline and he accidentally fired the AK, the driver would still be justified.

I think the most likely scenario is Garrett was power tripping from walking around open carrying. He felt like Mr. Badass with his open carry and black girlfriend next to him in a wheelchair. Him pushing her, showed the others that he was on their side, and I bet he got a lot of circle jerking from other commies for it, which stroked his ego to an extreme degree.

He thought he was all that was right and good, which warped his brain, so when he approached the driver threatening them, something happened to where Foster shot first. People there say they "think" it's because the driver pointed a gun at his quadriplegic girlfriend (if you have to say "you think" when you were there, you weren't a witness), which is an absolutely ridiculous claim that clearly deserves scrutiny, because why the hell would a driver point a gun at a woman in a wheelchair with no arms and legs, standing next to a guy with an AK? Sounds wholesale made up. It's actually pretty clear from just the timing of the shots alone, that the driver did not have a gun in their hand when the AK shots were fired, otherwise it wouldn't have taken soo long for them to return fire.

And it was long enough that he fired his 5 shots slowly, there was a pause, and the guy in the car can be heard returning fire. It's pretty clear that if the person had their pistol out and were threatening people, he sure as heck wouldn't have gotten off 5 shots and then a pause before return fire.

Indicates that as the driver was hearing the shots go off, they took cover and reached for their pistol wherever they kept it in the car. In any case, it's pretty clear that there was no justification for Garrett shooting first. Even when they tried to say the driver was threatening people with his car, the driver was actually surrounded and stopped. Meaning there was no justification there either for firing the AK first.

I know that they will try to burn the driver, but there's just too much evidence in the scenario that says Garrett had no cause to fire first. Even if it was just bad trigger discipline and he accidentally fired the AK, the driver would still be justified.

I think the most likely scenario is Garrett was power tripping from walking around open carrying. He felt like Mr. Badass with his open carry and black girlfriend next to him in a wheelchair. Him pushing her, showed the others that he was on their side, and I bet he got a lot of circle jerking from other commies for it, which stroked his ego to an extreme degree.

He thought he was all that was right and good, which warped his brain, so when he approached the driver threatening them, something happened to where Foster shot first. People there say it's because the driver pointed a gun at his quadriplegic girlfriend, which is an absolutely ridiculous claim that clearly deserves scrutiny, because why the hell would a driver point a gun at a woman in a wheelchair with no arms and legs, standing next to a guy with an AK? Sounds wholesale made up. It's actually pretty clear from just the timing of the shots alone, that the driver did not have a gun in their hand when the AK shots were fired, otherwise it wouldn't have taken soo long for them to return fire.

And it was long enough that he fired his 5 shots slowly, there was a pause, and the guy in the car can be heard returning fire. It's pretty clear that if the person had their pistol out and were threatening people, he sure as heck wouldn't have gotten off 5 shots and then a pause before return fire.

Indicates that as the driver was hearing the shots go off, they took cover and reached for their pistol wherever they kept it in the car. In any case, it's pretty clear that there was no justification for Garrett shooting first. Even when they tried to say the driver was threatening people with his car, the driver was actually surrounded and stopped. Meaning there was no justification there either for firing the AK first.

I know that they will try to burn the driver, but there's just too much evidence in the scenario that says Garrett had no cause to fire first. Even if it was just bad trigger discipline and he accidentally fired the AK, the driver would still be justified.

I think the most likely scenario is Garrett was power tripping from walking around open carrying. He felt like Mr. Badass with his open carry and black girlfriend next to him in a wheelchair. Him pushing her, showed the others that he was on their side, and I bet he got a lot of circle jerking from other commies for it, which stroked his ego to an extreme degree.

He thought he was all that was right and good, which warped his brain, so when he approached the driver threatening them, something happened to where he decided to fire shots. People there say it's because the driver pointed a gun at his quadriplegic girlfriend, which is an absolutely ridiculous claim that clearly deserves scrutiny, because why the hell would a driver point a gun at a woman in a wheelchair with no arms and legs, standing next to a guy with an AK? Sounds wholesale made up. It's actually pretty clear from just the timing of the shots alone, that the driver did not have a gun in their hand when the AK shots were fired, otherwise it wouldn't have taken soo long for them to return fire.

And it was long enough that he fired his 5 shots slowly, there was a pause, and the guy in the car can be heard returning fire. It's pretty clear that if the person had their pistol out and were threatening people, he sure as heck wouldn't have gotten off 5 shots and then a pause before return fire.

Indicates that as the driver was hearing the shots go off, they took cover and reached for their pistol wherever they kept it in the car. In any case, it's pretty clear that there was no justification for Garrett shooting first. Even when they tried to say the driver was threatening people with his car, the driver was actually surrounded and stopped. Meaning there was no justification there either for firing the AK first.

I know that they will try to burn the driver, but there's just too much evidence in the scenario that says Garrett had no cause to fire first. Even if it was just bad trigger discipline and he accidentally fired the AK, the driver would still be justified.

I think the most likely scenario is Garrett was power tripping from walking around open carrying. He felt like Mr. Badass with his open carry and black girlfriend next to him in a wheelchair. Him pushing her, showed the others that he was on their side, and I bet he got a lot of circle jerking from other commies for it, which stroked his ego to an extreme degree.

And it was long enough that he fired his 5 shots slowly, there was a pause, and the guy in the car can be heard returning fire. It's pretty clear that if the person had their pistol out and were threatening people, he sure as heck wouldn't have gotten off 5 shots and then a pause before return fire.

Indicates that as the driver was hearing the shots go off, they took cover and reached for their pistol wherever they kept it in the car. In any case, it's pretty clear that there was no justification for Garrett shooting first. Even when they tried to say the driver was threatening people with his car, the driver was actually surrounded and stopped. Meaning there was no justification there either for firing the AK first.

I know that they will try to burn the driver, but there's just too much evidence in the scenario that says Garrett had no cause to fire first. Even if it was just bad trigger discipline and he accidentally fired the AK, the driver would still be justified.

I think the most likely scenario is Garrett was power tripping from walking around open carrying.

And it was long enough that he fired his 5 shots slowly, there was a pause, and the guy in the car can be heard returning fire. It's pretty clear that if the person had their pistol out and were threatening people, he sure as heck wouldn't have gotten off 5 shots and then a pause before return fire. Indicates that as the driver was hearing the shots go off, the reached for their pistol wherever they kept it in the car. In any case, it's pretty clear that there was no justification for Garrett shooting first. Even when they tried to say the driver was threatening people with his car, the driver was actually surrounded and stopped. Meaning there was no justification there either for firing the AK first.

I know that they will try to burn the driver, but there's just too much evidence in the scenario that says Garrett had no cause to fire first. Even if it was just bad trigger discipline and he accidentally fired the AK, the driver would still be justified.