Posted on 08/16/2018 4:39:56 AM PDT by marktwain
On 5 November, 2014, Demarco M. Williams shot and killed Javarious Walthour. Williams was 26, Walthour was 20. Williams had been convicted of fleeing in 2008, when he was 20. Demarco Williams chose to go to a jury trial rather than plead to a lesser charge.
On August 10th, 2018, the jury found Williams not guilty of murder, criminal damage to property, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. From augustachronicle.com:
Defense attorney Peter Johnson argued to the jury that Williams shot Walthour in self-defense because he knew Walthour was armed and looking for him. Walthour had already robbed him once that day, Johnson said.
(snip)
Assistant District Attorney Amanda Pennington argued to the jury that it didn’t make sense that Williams would go to the neighborhood where Walthour hung out if he was scared of him. Williams shot Walthour for revenge, Pennington said.
Though the jury acquitted Williams of the main charges, it found him guilty of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. He was convicted in 2008 of fleeing. Sentencing was delayed until next week.
The jury found him guilty of possession of a firearm by a felon. It is not clear if the felon in possession charge is from the 2014 shooting or from a separate incident in 2015. In the 2015 incident, Williams' bond was revoked after a gun was found when a car he was in was
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Agreed. But one can still be not guilty of murder, by reason of self defense. Yet still be guilty of felony possession of a firearm.
This is the old “rather be judged by twelve than carried by six” rationale.
The second amendment does not exclude convicted felons. If the state thinks a criminal too evil then give the felon life or execute him. If the state says a felon has served their time…then the second amendment should apply to him as it does everyone else.
Ill reserve my opinion, the newspapers never gives the full story.
T Y 4 posting, I found the article interesting. I understand why different jurors would have different views in a case like this.
All trials are won or lost through jury selection...
I was tossed from the jury pool for just this opinion when asked directly by the prosecutor.
On one hand, you could look at it as a person is convicted of a crime (felony), does their time, and then is released. As the saying goes, they "paid their debt to society" for their actions. In that light, why wouldn't they be allowed to possess a firearm?
On the other hand, if losing your freedom temporarily (being incarcerated) is part of "paying your debt to society" why couldn't losing your right to possess a firearm (permanently) also be considered part of paying that debt?
Every once in a while I pull this issue out and think about it - but it doesn't keep me up at night.
How can a man have the right of self defense, yet be prohibited from the apparatus to do so?
The prohibition seems to be a civil rights violation.
there are non-violent felons who have the same restriction (even though they would appear to pose no violent threat).
Also, often there is a parole period for which they could face such a restriction, but ask these governors who are pushing for the right of felons to vote why their gun rights should be denied?
No they have paid their "debt to society". There is no such debt. That whole concept is a foolish rationalization for prison sentences.
Criminals are locked away in prison for a time because that limits their predatory behavior against the larger society. A small percentage of criminals may also be deterred by the prospects of future prison sentences.
Whether felons should be prohibited from having weapons is an open question. Way too many crimes are called felonies which have nothing to do with violent behavior.
A lifetime sentence of being disarmed is basically unenforceable in any case. Self-defense is not merely a "right", it is a basic instinctive drive. People will arm themselves with something and fight off predators no matter what laws the Government passes.
Given the context in which the constitution was written — that of a new country keen to free itself from the clutches of an overbearing English tyranny — it is strange that the Second Amendment is actually based on English law. Specifically, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 codified what was regarded as a natural right to self-defense. This bill essentially limited the power of the English king to disarm his subjects, after Charles II had tried to disarm Protestants, whom he viewed as a threat to his power.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/12/is_the_second_amendment_unique.html
In many states they can petition the governor after completing their sentence.
Might help to live a law abiding life for a few decades.
True. But there are other means of lethal self-defense. If one of them had been used, he would have gotten off. And rightfully so.
“True. But there are other means of lethal self-defense. If one of them had been used, he would have gotten off. And rightfully so.”
Yes, we are agreeing on this.
'Felony posession' is stupid. All creatures of God have the right to defend themselves. I'd never vote for conviction on that count if I were on a jury. If he can't have a firearm, he should still be in jail.
That's because it is.
Sorry guys, but killing of an LEO by a felon resisting arrest for the commission of a new felony is NOT self defense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.