Posted on 08/26/2019 3:42:07 AM PDT by marktwain
This is the case of Siwatu-Salama Ra, who was sentenced to two years in prison after using the display of a gun to protect herself, her mother and her daughter. Ra was pregnant at the time of the event on 16 July, 2017.
The other party involved, Channell Harvey, contacted the police first, three hours before Ra did. The Detroit police assumed that Channell Harvey, the first person reporting the incident, was the victim. This is a common occurrence in law enforcement, which is why there may be a race to the phones to be the first to report an incident to the police.
Channel Harvey had recorded Ra with her phone, showing her displaying her defensive firearm. Ra had a valid Michigan concealed carry permit. Channel was reportedly on probation for felony assault in another case.
Both parties claimed the other had threatened the other. Several organizations, including the Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA, as well as several on the Left, defended Ra's use of non-deadly force.
At the trial, the judge mistakenly ruled that merely displaying a gun was the use of deadly force. That goes against common sense and several precedents.
This varies from state to state; in Arizona, it is clear merely displaying a firearm is not the same as using deadly force. In Arizona, the threat of deadly force is not the same as using deadly force.
The Michigan Court of Appeals found the legal distinction is important and has meaning.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Isn’t ‘brandishing’ a firearm a crime in some places?
I guess you are just supposed to ‘whip it out’ and kill them with no warning....
That’s the Tuco rule of engagement. :)
The key is whether the "brandishing" is jusified or not. This case was all about affirming that merely showing a gun, in order to defuse a threat, is not the use of deadly force. It is the threat of deadly force.
The appeals court showed clear precedence that mere display of a deadly weapon, even pointing it at someone, is not the same as the use of deadly force.
Another filthy court.
? Did not read the article, did you?
More black-robed tyranny.
How would you have wanted the court to have ruled?
I would have wanted the *jury* to decide guilt.
Did the black-robed tyrant decide that she was guilty just for drawing a firearm?
The first judge....what, did you think I was talking about the appeals court?
Thanks. Now all is clear.
So, is she going to prison for two years, or is that what the court reversed?
Dude, read the article. Just like I did.
CC
I did read the article. I confess I skimmed parts. The story meandered way too much.
So this is what they put in place:
Revised Arizona Jury Instruction (RAJI 4th)
AZ RAJI4th 4.21 − Justification: Defensive Display of a Firearm
The defendant is justified in defensively displaying a firearm if a reasonable person would have believed that physical force was immediately necessary to protect himself/herself against the [use] [attempted use] of unlawful [physical force] [deadly physical force].
The defendant was not justified in displaying a firearm if:
[The defendant intentionally provoked another person to [use] [attempt to use] unlawful physical force.]
[The defendant used a firearm during the commission of a (list serious offense from A.R.S. § 13-706) (list violent crime from A.R.S. § 13-901.03)].
“Defensive display of a firearm” includes:
Verbally informing another person that the person possesses or has available a firearm.
Exposing or displaying a firearm in a manner that a reasonable person would understand was meant to protect the person against another’s use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.
Placing the person’s hand on a firearm while the firearm is contained in a pocket, purse or other means of containment or transport. [The defendant was not required to defensively display a firearm before using physical force or threatening physical force that was otherwise justified.]
The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not defensively display a firearm. If the State fails to carry this burden, then you must find the defendant not guilty of the charge.
The article does not provide a clear explanation of Ra’s legal status. So much so that one of the comments below the article reads “So what is the status of the case. Is she out? Are they headed for a new trial, or…??”
Her Wikipedia page, though also imprecise and poorly written, implies that the conviction was overturned though it does not state that she has been released.
I concede that the article was somewhat less that concise. Glad the appeals court got it right. It sets a valuable precedent for concealed carriers in Michigan.
CC
At the trial, the judge mistakenly ruled that merely displaying a gun was the use of deadly force.
The case was sent back to the local court.
They probably will not hold another trial, but I don't know if they will or not.
“At the trial, the judge mistakenly ruled that merely displaying a gun was the use of deadly force. That goes against common sense and several precedents.”
I would not describe that as a “mistake”. Maybe “ideology showing” but not “mistake”.
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.