(Rare instance here of pandaring for a laff.)
Posted on 05/21/2017 10:46:22 AM PDT by reaganaut1
Since American citizens have the right to keep and bear arms (not just law enforcement officials, as gun control advocates maintain), it would seem to follow that they’re entitled to use their weapons when they are threatened.
More than a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that in Beard v. United States, where the first Justice Harlan wrote that the defendant, who had been convicted of manslaughter for killing a man in a violent dispute,
was not obliged to retreat, not to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground, and meet any attack upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force as, under all the circumstances, he, at the moment honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, were necessary to save his own life, or to protect himself from great bodily injury.
To codify that right and prevent people from being put on trial for reasonable, defensive gun use when a prosecutor thinks they might instead have retreated or fled, 24 states have enacted “stand your ground” statutes. Among them is North Carolina, but a recent case there shows that when prosecutors and judges want to convict a man for using his gun, the “stand your ground” law can be trampled upon.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Not all self defense is created equal. You might not need to retreat, but that’s not a right to escalate. Most of these cases boil down to passing up opportunities to end the conflict with everybody alive.
I read the description. It seems the defendant was a willing participant who kept re-engaging with the other person.
Plus he put his firearm under a garbage can afterwards?
It is not a clear cut case of they are trying to screw another ccw person here.
When placed in that situation, I think I’ll shoot and handle the consequences later.
According to a witness who saw dreads (dreadlocks), when defendant had none at the time?
From the link you supplied;
ECPD Officer Joseph Felton ("Officer Felton") interviewed Jackson at the scene on the night of the shooting, and Jackson described seeing "five black guys run up to the victim and shoot[] him point blank." When asked by Officer Felton to describe the shooter, Jackson said it was "a big dude with long dreads wearing an orange sweater" who had taken off running after the shooting. Defendant did not have dreadlocks at the time of the shooting. Jackson later denied ever having given this account.
Unreliable witness... or unreliable police officer?
I don’t know I didn’t read the rest of the story. What does that have to do with the point I made?
You had quoted another. I quoted you. Whatsamatta'?Did the comment hit too close to home? Civil rights for me and mine (LEO's) but to much LESS extents for anyone else?
Imagine if defendant had been off-duty police. Seriously. Then what? Guys keep driving by his house, stirring up trouble -- according to his own testimony he walks down the street a little ways to confront several who have driven by in a yet THIRD vehicle, and had gotten out of that vehicle.
Don't flatter yourself, Princess. Scanning through threads, I visit one, see your name, and remember that I hate your lying guts. That's not stalking, per se.
So are you part of a DA's office, or not? Is it a County in Central Texas?
We already know a lot about the rest.
That seemed high to me as well.
Murder is the crime committed where a person of sound mind and discretion (that is, of sufficient age to form and execute a criminal design and not legally “insane”) kills any human creature in being (excluding quick but unborn children) and in the peace of the state or nation (including all persons except the military forces of the public enemy in time of war or battle) without any warrant, justification, or excuse in law. with malice aforethought, express or implied, that is, with a deliberate purpose or a design or determination distinctly formed in the mind before the commission of the act, provided that death results from the injury Inflicted within one year and a day after its infliction.
Homicide is defined as the killing of any human creature.
And manslaughter is defined as the unlawful killing of a human creature without malice, either ex- press or implied, and without any mixture of deliberation whatever; which may be voluntary, upon a sudden heat of passion, or involuntary, in the commission of an unlawful act, or a lawful act without due caution and circumspection.
These definitions are all out of Black’s Law Dictionary, the most used law defining tool in the US.
The problem I have here is that when the violence erupted, Epps was the aggressor here by creating the initial verbal attack and then returning to continue it. He also shot an unarmed man that nothing I can find
Epps returned once more and a shouting match between himself and Walker ensued in the street. Walker lost his temper and punched Epps, at which point Epps drew a pistol and shot Walker in the stomach. Walker fell and Epps then turned his gun on Lee, who had his gun out. Lee fired and killed Epps.
Nobody here had just cause to discharge a firearm. And it was undefined if Leee was actually in danger. The perception of danger is a broad topic and since Lee had brandished his weapon prior to being in the conflict and before Epps turned to him, Lee caused the threat.
Lee was subsequently arrested and charged with second-degree murder. He was a bystander who had acted in self-defense, but nevertheless local officials wanted to make an example of him.
At trial, Lee’s attorney argued that he had acted in self-defense, which is in question. But in charging the jury, the judge failed to make any mention of the state’s “stand your ground” law or the defendant’s right to use force in the defense of his cousin (who had died of his wounds). The jury returned a verdict of guilty. The attorney only argued that the act was of self defense, not proved it. In this case, without proof, the stand your ground law is not in effect. No criteria to match the law.
rwood
(Rare instance here of pandaring for a laff.)
You most likely will be charged with murder, I was, and for what it’s worth, most all police officers that use deadly force are initially and officially charged with murder, although unlike me they are not taken into custody. Then a Grand Jury decides to send to trial or “No Bill” it as happened in my case. If they had down an indictment it goes to trial. Then hopefully you can afford a real lawyer and not a court appointed oxygen thief.
“A complete injustice. Hopefully the appeals court will overturn.”
Some of the testimony indicates that Epps was down on the ground wounded when the defendant approached and fired several rounds into him at point-blank range.
It’s gettin’ dangerous out there!
That would make a good sticker for the gate or the front door.
Sorry, but that’s tantamount to taxing me for exercising a right. If it comes to a point where people exercising their right to self-defense are guaranteed to be convicted of murder, you’ll see the reporting of self-defense uses plummet and the stocks of porcine husbandry skyrocket.
Selling insurance for a God given right.
SMH
Maybe, but at least you’ll be alive to stand trial.
I have a policy with Texas Law Shield. Got it the same time as my license to carry. They've gone national since then.
Thank you for the link. The guy was convicted based on his behavior.
“The trial court in this case instructed the jury, pursuant to N.C.P.I. — Crim. 206.101 and as agreed upon by the parties, that Defendant “would be not guilty of any murder or manslaughter if [he] acted in self-defense and ... was not the aggressor in provoking the fight and did not use excessive force under the circumstances.”
The jury obviously felt it either was not self-defense, or that it followed the defendant provoking the fight.
“Further, the State’s witness, Quentin Jackson, testified that he observed Defendant “[come] out of nowhere” and shoot Epps while Epps was on the ground and before Epps ever had an opportunity to aim a gun at Defendant. See State v. Locklear...(noting that “[i]t is a well established [sic] rule in this State that a jury is the sole judge of a witness’ credibility, and it may believe some, all, or none of what a witness says.”).”
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.
