Stand your ground isn't a get out of jail card

[TAZ]

Not sure, but here are a couple of ideas.....

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!

1. Very good point, but still not an excuse for idiotic behavior.

2. Incredibly true, but still not an excuse for idiotic behavior.

3. Exactly the reason why one shouldn't go out looking for trouble.

Based on what SSB posted (trusting his summary at this point as I haven't read the doc yet). The defendant and his friend purposely armed themselves and went looking for the guy who caused the initial issue. Initial aggressor had withdrawn from the scene and AFAWK was not an immediate threat. 2 armed dudes show up and initiate contact with the aggressor who had withdrawn from the situation and now want to claim they were defending themselves. There is probably a decent case to be made that the only person actually defending himself in this scenario is the guy who left the scene and was later set upon by 2 armed dudes.

Have no clue on the technicalities of jury instruction, but if I'm on that jury there would need to be some mitigating circumstances to justify self defense, no mater how broadly the castle doctrine is written. They didn't happen upon the guy, they guy didn't come looking for them... they armed themselves and went looking for a guy they had a fight with. Not a good idea no matter how drunk or how unPC it is to call the police.

[walker2713]

I agree with Blues and Taz.....

In my previous post I was somewhat "tongue in cheek" responding to the question of why someone didn't have the good sense to call the po-po.

[ssb]

1. Very good point, but still not an excuse for idiotic behavior.

2. Incredibly true, but still not an excuse for idiotic behavior.

3. Exactly the reason why one shouldn't go out looking for trouble.

Based on what SSB posted (trusting his summary at this point as I haven't read the doc yet). The defendant and his friend purposely armed themselves and went looking for the guy who caused the initial issue. Initial aggressor had withdrawn from the scene and AFAWK was not an immediate threat. 2 armed dudes show up and initiate contact with the aggressor who had withdrawn from the situation and now want to claim they were defending themselves. There is probably a decent case to be made that the only person actually defending himself in this scenario is the guy who left the scene and was later set upon by 2 armed dudes.

Have no clue on the technicalities of jury instruction, but if I'm on that jury there would need to be some mitigating circumstances to justify self defense, no mater how broadly the castle doctrine is written. They didn't happen upon the guy, they guy didn't come looking for them... they armed themselves and went looking for a guy they had a fight with. Not a good idea no matter how drunk or how unPC it is to call the police.

In the interest of full disclosure, I mistakenly stated that Walker, one of the shooting victims, had armed himself. He did not. The defendant, Lee, did retrieve a pistol from his vehicle prior to going with Walker to confront Epps. Epps was also armed. Nevertheless, I don't think that changes the situation much. Testimony at trial indicated Walker took a swing at Epps, thus causing the second confrontation to turn physical. Epps -- who is a "victim" in only the most liberal use of the word -- proceeded to shoot Walker from entanglement several times in response. The important takeaway is that this was 100% preventable. The movement by Walker and Lee to confront Epps was, unfortunately, common behavior in some social circles. My non-involved assumption based upon experience with that sort of person is that (a horribly misguided sense of) honor was at stake here. Epps punked Walker and Lee in front of their friends at a party and drove off, Walker and Lee decided they needed to restore balance, and they walked over to try to make that happen. Everybody lost.

Ultimately, I think Lee lost because the jury didn't find it credible that a guy who wasn't willing to let a minor altercation go -- and instead chose to grab a gun and walk over to the guy who had just pissed him off -- had a credible claim of self-defense, law or no law. Based upon the information in the NC CoA opinion, I think the best practice would have been to give (or at least object to its absence...) that SYG instruction. I also don't think it would have made any difference, for the reasons in bold in your post. Juries have a sense of right and wrong, and it's a lot more natural for them to go with that than a sheet of often-convoluted instructions they generally don't fully understand.

There are problems with the opinion -- the defense of third party section in particular is bullshit (Epps was no longer a threat to Walker at the time Lee shot Epps because Walker had just fallen down from all the shots Epps dumped into him? Really?). I'm not so sure the SYG portion is one of them.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

via Imgflip Meme Generator