Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Self-Defense Not an Option

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1

    Self-Defense Not an Option

    A few years ago I was on a jury where a young man had brought a gun (loaded) to a confrontation with other young men of a different race. The victim ended up chasing after the young man, with the gun, with a large butterfly knife. The young man pulled his gun and fired three shots to his rear as he was fleeing. The young man with the butterfly knife died. The California Judge ruled that self defense was not an option for a verdict. He received murder II.

    Viewing this case, I think the OC is supported by the US constitution, but, if confronted with a life threatening situation, and loading the weapon anywhere outside the home or fenced property, in California, the gun owner has a good chance of not having Self-Defense as an option and ending up with Murder II for the gun owner.

  2. #2

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by JayJay View Post
    A few years ago I was on a jury where a young man had brought a gun (loaded) to a confrontation with other young men of a different race. The victim ended up chasing after the young man, with the gun, with a large butterfly knife. The young man pulled his gun and fired three shots to his rear as he was fleeing. The young man with the butterfly knife died. The California Judge ruled that self defense was not an option for a verdict. He received murder II.

    Viewing this case, I think the OC is supported by the US constitution, but, if confronted with a life threatening situation, and loading the weapon anywhere outside the home or fenced property, in California, the gun owner has a good chance of not having Self-Defense as an option and ending up with Murder II for the gun owner.
    One of many reasons I left the PRK. There is no recourse for that state...it is fully entrenched by the Left/Anti's.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by JayJay View Post
    SNIP The California Judge ruled that self defense was not an option for a verdict. He received murder II.
    What is a judge doing telling the jury their options. Or, more to the point, what is the jury doing believing the judge, or feeling bound by his instructions?

    The powers of the jury are huge, if the jury knows and exercises them.

    For any who are unfamiliar with what I am talking about, read Section I of An Essay on the Trial by Jury by Lysander Spooner:

    http://lysanderspooner.org/node/35

    And, check things out at the Fully Informed Jury Association website here: http://fija.org/
    Last edited by Citizen; 09-19-2010 at 09:48 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865
    An individual who posts something like this on thier very first post, is 99.9438567% likely to be a troll.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Decoligny View Post
    An individual who posts something like this on thier very first post, is 99.9438567% likely to be a troll.
    I know. But, I couldn't pass up the chance at spreading the word about jury powers.

    If it is a troll, what a great opportunity he gave me. And, I'll bet he never expected the conversation to take that turn.

    And, if he's not a troll, we still win.


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by JayJay View Post
    A few years ago I was on a jury where a young man had brought a gun (loaded) to a confrontation with other young men of a different race. The victim ended up chasing after the young man, with the gun, with a large butterfly knife. The young man pulled his gun and fired three shots to his rear as he was fleeing. The young man with the butterfly knife died. The California Judge ruled that self defense was not an option for a verdict. He received murder II.

    Viewing this case, I think the OC is supported by the US constitution, but, if confronted with a life threatening situation, and loading the weapon anywhere outside the home or fenced property, in California, the gun owner has a good chance of not having Self-Defense as an option and ending up with Murder II for the gun owner.
    Well then you didn't do a very good job educating your fellow jurors about self defense.

    Obviously the "shooter" would have been better off being stabbed....

  8. #8
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    The judge was WRONG.

    Even if you are the one who begins an attack, if you make clear (i.e. running from the knife wielder) that you are no longer interested in combat, and then the one you attacked continues combat, the law, even in Kalifornia, says that you may then defend yourself. And yes, includes using deadly force if reasonably in fear of loss of life or great bodily harm.

    As for the power of the jury to ignore instructions or laws that they feel are not right....more people need to be educated on those powers. And more people that are educated need to stop using that education to avoid serving on those juries whether criminal or civil. How else do you think all those ambulance chasers win all those big damages awards for clients that, for instance, dove into a four foot deep pool after repeated warning from adults present (14 million from doughboy because the warning sticker instructions for placement weren't good enough)?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    The judgement was not wrong!

    Hey We-the-people,

    The young man showed-up to a a "confrontation" with a gun. In other words, the people involved had a date to brawl and mame.

    "A few years ago I was on a jury where a young man had brought a gun (loaded) to a confrontation with other young men of a different race."

    This was a racially based gang type battle.

    It is illegal to be involved in pre meditated battery, assault, or murder.

    It is also illegal to posses a gun while committing a felony and/or being involved in gang violence.

    This case is not self defense.

    markm

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Tahoe, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkBofRAdvocate View Post
    Hey We-the-people,

    The young man showed-up to a a "confrontation" with a gun. In other words, the people involved had a date to brawl and mame.

    "A few years ago I was on a jury where a young man had brought a gun (loaded) to a confrontation with other young men of a different race."

    This was a racially based gang type battle.

    It is illegal to be involved in pre meditated battery, assault, or murder.

    It is also illegal to posses a gun while committing a felony and/or being involved in gang violence.

    This case is not self defense.

    markm
    I don't read that. Simply showing up to a brawl ("don't show up to a gun fight with a knife") doesn't mean he intends to brawl. Officers frequently show up at conflicts armed to the teeth, but to assume they're there to lay down lead because of them being armed and trained is incendiary. I don't blame a rape victim for dressing sexily, going out and getting drunk and then dragged into a dark alley.

    Based upon the subject: Victim fleeing and being pursued by an armed assailant, it qualifies as self defense. If self-defense didn't qualify, he wouldn't have fled, wouldn't had fired to the rear and wouldn't have been pursued.

    Now, if someone wants to make the case of the guy with the knife attempting to exercise a "citizens arrest"... that's different.

  11. #11
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    As I said in my first post, even if you intend to commit great bodily injury upon another, if you break off your attack and communicate that you are no longer interested in combat (whether mortal or not) then the person you were attacking continues or re engages, you are LAWFULLY allowed to defend yourself.

    This is rarely encountered but it is the law.

    If the fleeing man is being pursued by someone with a knife and is firing to his rear while running away from the conflict, under the law, he is justified to defend himself. It matters not that he came to engage in combat, it matters not if he initially instigated it, it doesn't matter if the gun was legally or illegally possessed (that would be separate charge). All that matters is that he is fleeing combat and in fear of great bodily injury.

    It's a tricky area of law, certainly difficult to prove if you are the initial assailant, but from the description given, certainly applies.

    He should not have been convicted of anything regarding the shooting of the knife wielding man. Illegal possession or other charges (such as the initial assault and battery) would be appropriate and just, but any murder charge while fleeing a knife wielding attacker (in pursuit with a deadly weapon is attacking) has no legal backing and any good attorney (bet he had a public defender) should have gotten him off. Now a judge who choses to incorrectly instruct jurors, and/or a jury who choses to listen to incorrect instructions, can and do ignore the FACT of black letter (i.e. written law) and send people to jail on charges that don't apply.....daily.....because our system is broken.

    Doesn't change the fact that the accused was lawfully defending himself under the intent and letter of the law.

  12. #12
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkBofRAdvocate View Post
    Hey We-the-people,

    The young man showed-up to a a "confrontation" with a gun. In other words, the people involved had a date to brawl and mame.

    "A few years ago I was on a jury where a young man had brought a gun (loaded) to a confrontation with other young men of a different race."

    This was a racially based gang type battle.

    It is illegal to be involved in pre meditated battery, assault, or murder.

    It is also illegal to posses a gun while committing a felony and/or being involved in gang violence.

    This case is not self defense.

    markm
    I think you miss the point. An accused should be able to make his defense as broadly as he wishes and the jury should decide his guilt or innocence based on the facts of the case. For a judge to determine for the jury what defenses can and can't be used, effectively deprives the accused of a jury trial.
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •