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 ...
“You had quoted another. I quoted you.”
You didn’t quote me. You copied my quote of another post.
I see you are taking up with the dude that killed, disposed of his gun and then fled. Sound familiar?
The fact that he fled, threw away his gun and tried to hide the ejected casings might have some bearing ...
As soon as I saw it was a Forbes article I knew it would be a waste of my time to even open it.
You are the perp and the savages who attack you and your family are protected by the laws that are suppose to protect you
Isn't that great?
I can hardly wait until I find out what 4th Amendment insurance will cost...
There must be a special package rate of only $500 a month for Bill of Rights insurance.
Such a deal!
“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...
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).”
Lee didn’t have the right to use deadly force to defend his cousin, since his cousin started the fight. If anything Epps was acting in self-defense against his cousin. Moreover, when Lee drew his gun Epps could easily have assumed his life was in danger and shot Lee in self defense. The premise of the article is BS. Epps had a better case for self defense.
Notice the passive verbiage, “Walker fell and Epps then turned his gun on Lee, who had his gun out”. IOW Lee drew his gun and Epps responded by shooting at him.
But this schlub got convicted.
Yes, indeed. The underlying fact pattern, if the appeal court decision is accurate, is quite different from what Zimmerman did. I was remarking on the article title ("You can Get Charged ...") and remarking that even if you are totally and unquestionably in the right, you can get charged. The law is a for profit business, all around.
Actually, Gyrell Lee had just witnessed Quinton Epps draw a gun and shoot Lee’s cousin Jamiel Walker five times. Epps then turned his gun upon Lee, who fired his now drawn CCW, killing Epps in self defense. Perhaps eight rounds in defense was excessive; or, perhaps not, if Epps didn’t stop the assault until that final round. Fire until the assault ends.
It’s still self defense against an armed assailant, who at arms reach just shot a family member, then turned the weapon in your direction. There was no option available at that point but to die or fight.
Also, based on the referenced article, the incident happened in front of Jamiel Walker’s home—no one at Walker’s New Years Eve party went down the street seeking a confrontation. Trouble came calling.
https://www.cato.org/blog/defending-right-armed-self-defense-tar-heel-state
Or else say "Screw the law" and fall back on that old right/wrong business.
When you are aquitted, seek out the Azzhats that tried to lock you up on false pretense and kill them in a non death penalty state.
It’s simple really. If you use a firearm to defend you or your loved ones life and the state tries to lock you up for it, you have to defend yourself against whoever the state sends to end your freedom. Oh well. They brought it on themselves.
You obviously have not read my court documents links ...
“Actually,”
Actually ....
“Defendant and Walker walked down the street to talk to Epps. Epps and Walker began arguing. Defendant saw Epps had a gun behind his back. The argument escalated, and Walker punched Epps in the face.”
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20NCCO%2020160802477/STATE%20v.%20LEE
“Actually, “
Actually ....
“According to Jackson, Walker was able to run away and Epps remained on the ground, at which point Defendant “came out of nowhere,” stood over Epps, and began repeatedly shooting Epps at close range. Jackson also testified that another unidentified individual was shooting at Defendant, but that Epps never aimed at, or shot, Defendant.”
People who are frightened will do things that have the appearance of defense. The throwing away of the gun has no bearing on the case as he was determined to have shot and killed Epps with witnesses in attendance. It can be assumed by the court he hid the gun and bullets in an effort to create an illusion of innocents.
Where did you get this as the article, a Forbes one, didn’t mention this?
rwood
“It’s still self defense against an armed assailant, who at arms reach just shot a family member, then turned the weapon in your direction. There was no option available at that point but to die or fight.”
Epps had been attacked and was defending himself.
“The throwing away of the gun has no bearing on the case as he was determined to have shot and killed Epps with witnesses in attendance. It can be assumed by the court he hid the gun and bullets in an effort to create an illusion of innocents.”
ROTFLMAO!
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.