https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgel.../#4db1f28688a5
Given the turn in training for self-defense thread to or away from awareness and when you can use force (as an fart vs. Mixed Martial Arts Neck Beard), it's an interesting read.
The stand your g. defense didn't work and is under appeal. The defendant did lots of stupid things given the well known Farnam-ism of stupid places, people and things.
Good grief. In that situation even if the defendant could have made better decisions about the use of his time, it should have been considered justifiable use of force. That's a scary case, and I hope it is overturned by the NC Supreme Court.
There's derp written all over that. The defendant could have made some better choices, but the verdict is just dumb.
"Sapiens dicit: 'Ignoscere divinum est, sed noli pretium plenum pro pizza sero allata solvere.'" - Michelangelo
Good grief. The whole point to the stand your ground laws is to codify circumstances of legit self defense, but this stupid trial shouldn't have even been filed, even in a state without a stand your ground statute - let alone a conviction upheld in appeals court. The aggressor had a gun, and had just killed the man's cousin and then turned the gun his way. Any reasonable person, even Ghandi, would have defended himself.
It really seems to me like the case is either not as simple as presented, or Lee has/had a shitty lawyer.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
My first thought was, "that don't make no sense."
So, I found the case and skimmed it. Here's the actual case.
Walker, Lee (defendant) and Epps (decedent) had an argument. Epps drove away. Lee and Walker approach them several blocks away: Lee has armed himself by this point. At the site of the second altercation, which Walker and Lee apparently sought out, Lee noticed Walker's handgun. Things went physical between Walker and Epps and Epps shot Walker. Epps then turns the gun on Lee, who draws and shoots Epps.
Lee was not a bystander who merely acted in self-defense, per the opinion. Quite the contrary, Lee actively sought out the confrontation. That doesn't mean he walked down there to shoot Epps, but it does mean that he voluntarily placed himself in a position to confront Epps after Epps had withdrawn from the initial argument. He also chose to arm himself before doing so.
Forbes's characterization of the facts is... misleading ("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.").
Couple of issues:
a) Lee failed to preserve the alleged error at trial by objecting. That forced the CoA to apply a plain error analysis. He should have objected to the jury instructions. Being cognizant of potential appellate issues and appellate procedural requirements is mildly important for trial counsel...
b) The CoA did not hold that Lee was not in a place he [did not have] a right to be by being in a public street. They did, however, hold that i) the NC SYG statute (no duty to retreat) is contingent upon the reasonableness of the use of force; ii) Lee received jury instructions which spelled out the reasonableness analysis; and iii) given the instructions presented at trial, a SYG instruction probably would not have altered the outcome.
c) The CoA held that a reasonable jury could find Lee to be the initial aggressor. This is a problem for a would-be defender, as most SYG statutes require innocence. "Defendant voluntarily accompanied Walker down the street to confront Epps" is inconsistent with "not the first aggressor," when coupled with Lee's own testimony along with that of an eyewitness.
TL;DR: I don't think this is the stand your ground hill to die upon.
Thanks for posting that follow up. I agree with the OP's quote of the Farnam-ism. Dumb behavior put Lee in a position where he had no choice but to draw and shoot. If he hadn't, there's a good chance he would be dead.
ssb's post put the entire case in a different light. It sounds to me like Lee went looking for a fight and he found one. Even under Forbe's narrative I would have to ask why no one called the police?
Not sure, but here are a couple of ideas.....Originally Posted by Cypher
1) These are folks who aren't naturally inclined to involve themselves with the Poh'lice?
2) Alcohol has been known in some case to negatively affect good judgment?
3) Shit not only happens, sometimes it happens fast!
Gun Free Zones Aren’t an Inhibition….they’re an Invitation.
This doesn't appear to have happened fast which is what takes it out of the arena of 'stand your ground' or a purely defensive scenario. Apparently steps were taken not to avoid a further encounter.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Reply With Quote