Defendant acquitted in road rage trial speaks - Tucson Local Media: News

Defendant acquitted in road rage trial speaks

Welcome to the discussion.


  • dhymers posted at 6:09 pm on Wed, Apr 16, 2014.

    dhymers Posts: 5

    I'm a bit confused how the aggrevated assault charge didn't stick since the defendant was quoted as saying "I fired to scare him" by definition this is assault. Mota should have been further charged with lesser offences of disorderly conduct classified as dangerous (use or threatened use of a firearm) I'm not sure on the limits of charges but it's clear this would have applied here.

    Nobody knows what the jury considered the facts or who's testimony they favoured, but I believe they failed to serve even the lowest level of justice here.

  • factsfirst posted at 7:38 am on Thu, Apr 10, 2014.

    factsfirst Posts: 2

    I feel like no matter what if he did or didnt apologize people would still have something to say about it. In previous articles the mother said he didnt even say sorry once. He wasnt allowed to contact the family as part of his bond agreement. Heres his apology im sure there was a lot more to the interview than what the reporter put in. I pray for both families that God gives them peace and helps them find forgivness.

  • Don posted at 6:46 am on Thu, Apr 10, 2014.

    Don Posts: 71

    Sounds to me like the District Attorney's office screwed this one up. I can't fault the defense attorney. She did what she is supposed to do. Her comments indicate that some form of punishment would have been appropriate.

    It's a sad case all the way around.

  • factsfirst posted at 11:44 pm on Wed, Apr 9, 2014.

    factsfirst Posts: 2

    My thoughts and prayers are with both families. I cant imagine what its like on both sides. Loosing a loved one and a loved one taking the life of another all over a misunderstanding. Only God knows our fate and God has a plan for us all my He take the weight off your shoulders and the pain from your heart and His love wash over you and help heal the hurt.

  • KRH posted at 6:49 pm on Wed, Apr 9, 2014.

    KRH Posts: 1

    "he didn’t mean to kill someone, but that he reacted.” REALLY???? Will this be the next defense for a parent on trial for 'accidentaly" killing their baby by shaking it to death when the baby wouldn't stop crying?

    "Gee, sorry judge, I just reacted. I need to make better decisions so no one else dies."

    Justice was not served. Praying for all of Josh's family.

  • jerinaz posted at 11:08 am on Wed, Apr 9, 2014.

    jerinaz Posts: 2

    Natasha you are so wrong that is not stand your ground read that law David could hardly see him josh was in front of him he had the choice to turn and drive away call 911 anything I hope they change this law so scumbag lawyers like you cannot use it to get murders off or this city is in ttouble

  • Tucsonian1 posted at 11:02 am on Wed, Apr 9, 2014.

    Tucsonian1 Posts: 1

    This part really gets me..

    "The part of the (interrogation) that is most poignant is when detectives tell him he’s killed someone, and he becomes visibly, physically upset. "

    Umm wrong. So wrong. He is physically upset in the interrogation, NOT because he killed someone, but because he thinks he is going to jail. He feels sorry for HIMSELF, not for Josh or his family.

    And I think it's very ironic that he tries to show public remorse after the trial, now that all these news articles are circulating about him and what he did. He's not sorry. He's trying to make himself look better to the public. If he was truly sorry, he wouldn't have gone to reporters. Words mean nothing! And they should've meant nothing the night of the murder as well.

    Give me a break.


Featured Videos


Online poll



Follow us on Facebook