SC: A Felon Has Rights to Self Defense

Gun Watch ^ | 1 May, 2016 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Quintonio Porter


Felons do not give up their right to self defense simply because they have committed crimes in the past.  They often live a very dangerous lifestyle, and as the most common victims of homicide, they may need effective self defense more than other people. 

A recent case in South Carolina shows that the justice system is realizing this truth.  It investigated the shooting where Quintonio Porter, a convicted felon, shot and killed his friend, Jarrius Harding, in the middle of a gunfight. From heraldonline.com:

Jarrius Harding, 18, was killed in the midday shootout near the intersection of Black Street and Keels Avenue east of downtown Rock Hill. The shoot-out culminated a wild, 24-hour spree of gunfire in four incidents in the city.

Quintonio Porter, 23, who was in the car with Harding, also was shot and later was charged with attempted murder in the shootout with men in another car. But after an investigation, police and prosecutors determined that Porter was firing in self-defense when he shot Harding, said Willy Thompson, 16th Circuit deputy solicitor. They dropped the attempted murder charge against Porter.

Porter and Harding were being fired upon without immediate provocation by them.  Porter was attempting to fire back, but his pistol became entangled in the seat belt.  His shot struck Jarrius Harding as Harding sought to avoid the gunfire coming his way from the assailants.

Criminals almost never use holsters (FBI study) because they are hard to get rid of, so the seat belt entanglement is more understandable.

The study published by the FBI is "Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers."  In a summation from stoppingpower.net:

The offenders said they most often hid guns on their person in the front waistband, with the groin area and the small of the back nearly tied for second place. Some occasionally gave their weapons to another person to carry, "most often a female companion." None regularly used a holster, and about 40% at least sometimes carried a backup weapon.

In motor vehicles, they most often kept their firearm readily available on their person, or, less often, under the seat. In residences, most stashed their weapon under a pillow, on a nightstand, under the mattress--somewhere within immediate reach while in bed.

It is a good thing that self defense is legitimate for criminals.  The major reason for the proliferation of violent crime, particularly homicides, is a belief that the criminal justice system is unreliable.  Reinforcing the reliability of the police and the rest of the justice system is the key to reducing homicides.

David Kennedy from Harvard has repeatedly shown that this is so.  Only a small number of violent criminals commit most homicides in most cities.  When the community is willing to cooperate with police to remove, intimidate, and/or rehabilitate this tiny minority, the homicide rate falls precipitously.

Perhaps there is some way to tie the ability for effective defense to rehabilitation.  If such a system could be worked out, it would be a powerful incentive for criminals to avoid future problems.

 ©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

Just because a man has committed a crime, it does not mean he is no longer human. There needs to be a clear path to restoration of rights. A path exists in most states, but is often extremely difficult and tends to be quite costly.

[grobdriver]

Maybe there are varying degrees of truth to this, but I can tell you now - any person who has committed a crime with a firearm has no friggin right to carry one ever again for the simple reason that they have shown a lack of judgement in the extreme once, and are likely to again.

Now, a felon in a "white collar crime" might be a different story - and especially someone who was set up and convicted by BATF&E is not likely to commit a violent crime with a firearm - but there have to be some limits to any discussion and not just "Felons deserve..."

[Vaquero]

I agree. If the courts in all their wisdom lets a guy back on the streets, that should be it.

I would make the caveat that violent felons should be tried and the. executed.

[MrEdd]

They can rot in prison, or they can accept limited rights as part of the conditions for release.

Here is a thought: don’t commit felonies.

[ClearCase_guy]

Progressive Thinking 101:

1) Law-abiding citizens should not have guns
2) Convicted felons should have guns.

[marktwain]

Yes that is the way it works now. We can likely make improvements.

[arthurus]

The RKBA doesn’t exempt felons, or anyone else.

[GingisK]

On the other hand, felons generally go right back to what they do best once released.

[arthurus]

How do you derive that from the RKBA? Explain simply or with nuances how “the right to keep and bear arms” allows for the denial of the right to keep and bear arms to felons? If the exemption comes from the “it’s only reasonable” clause,” explain just where that clause is in the Constitution?

[Chode]

when this country was founded, the RKBA was denied murders simply because they were put to death

now they do <20yrs and are back on the streets

[wrench]

Felons lost their rights including the RKBA when the US Court syste4m found them GUILTY of a felonious offense. It is the law.

This progressive push to give everyone a “do-over” is BS. It is no secret you decide to ignore the law and you are in line to give up your freedoms. Another little fact progressives ignore is that felons NEVER get caught on their first offense. By the time the system gets them, they have committed dozens of crimes that were never attributed to them. So they aren’t just being punished for the one offense, but for the dozens that they did also.

“Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”.

[Puppage]

Here is a thought: don’t commit felonies.

Absolutely. Actions have consequences. Well, they did when I was a kid.

[IronJack]

From a strictly Constitutional standpoint, denying a felon the right to own guns is a violation of his Second Amendment rights. Nowhere does the 2A qualify that right; indeed, its language is “shall NOT be infringed.”

My argument does not take into account precedent or “reasonability.” It is put forth from a purely Constitutional perspective.

[stylin19a]

what exactly is a non-convicted felon ? Bill Ayers ?
felons are allowed to have guns ?
What next, they get to vote ?
America, what a country.

[usconservative]

How do you derive that from the RKBA? Explain simply or with nuances how “the right to keep and bear arms” allows for the denial of the right to keep and bear arms to felons?

So all the gang-bangers in Chicago that have violent felony rap sheets a mile long should be allowed to legally carry weapons once they're released from jail?

On what planet?!

[usconservative]

Here is a thought: don’t commit felonies.

Bears repeating.

[ctdonath2]

I agree, with the exception/reservation that many felonies really should be misdemeanors. “Felony” should be reserved for crimes of actual & grave harm, not paperwork/regulatory transgressions (say, cutting a shotgun barrel 1/2” too short).

[grobdriver]

Well, I have to wonder if the founders would have taken a person found guilty in a violent crime using a firearm and let them out of prison in 6 months on "good behavior".

There were different expectations then, and different ways of dealing with the lawless, and you're right - no such action as barring gun ownership would probably have been taken - the perp probably would not have either been free to recommit, or able to.

If I were king I would no more allow a convicted violent firearm offender legal access to a gun as allow a convicted pedophile/child abuser operate a day care center.

I wonder what opinion the founders would have of that?
My guess is, such an offender wouldn't be around to ask the question.

[ctdonath2]

It’s derived from the principle that incarcerated felons have no rights: society has decided that in lieu of prolonged incarceration, we’ll let some out so long as they agree to certain rights-limiting terms (like “no guns”). The alternative is lifetime imprisonment on “too dangerous to let out” grounds, which is perfectly acceptable under the Constitution.

To wit: we can lock them up forever if you’d rather.

[arthurus]

So you believe that the changed situation necessitates changing the Constitution by interpretation to fit the changed times? That way lies rendering the Constitution meaningless altogether and is how we got where we are now. It doesn’t matter who carries a gun. The law does not affect whether a felon carries a gun. It only punishes him unConstitutionally if he is caught with a gun and does not deter. If the felon uses the gun feloniously that is the crime and is punishable under the Constitution. It is like adding Hate to a crime. What does that accomplish beyond making people feel good? Does it deter hatred? NO. Stripping a felon of his RKBA is merely piling on. You don’t like the guy so he shouldn’t be allowed to carry or to engage in self defense. If his attacker kills him because he doesn’t have a gun well that’s his just deserts, right? You don’t like the RKBA? then work to get it Amended out of existence or to add whatever exceptions you prefer.