The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Second Amendment => Topic started by: Sanguine on August 22, 2019, 04:37:54 pm
-
Yesterday the Michigan Court of Appeals handed down a decision in a highly public and very controversial case that gun owners across the United States should applaud. In short, it demonstrates and validates the value of armed self-defense even when you do not pull the trigger and — crucially — have no cause to pull the trigger. It justifies the brandishing of a gun as pre-emptive measure to block the use of unlawful force.
What do I mean? Hang with me for a moment, because this case is a bit complicated. At its heart is a dispute between Siwatu-Salama Ra, an African-American concealed-carry permit holder from Detroit, and a woman named Channel Harvey. Ra was put on trial for assault with a dangerous weapon and possessing a firearm while committing a felony after she brandished her unloaded pistol at Harvey during a heated confrontation outside Ra’s mother’s house.
The facts are hotly disputed, but Ra claimed that during the course of an argument, Harvey backed her car into Ra’s vehicle — while Ra’s two-year-old daughter was inside, playing. Ra claims she grabbed her daughter out of the car, then grabbed her unloaded gun, “pointed the gun at Harvey’s car†and then again demanded that Harvey leave. Harvey testified that Ra was the aggressor, and that she hit Ra’s car on accident only after Ra pointed the gun at her. The jury apparently believed Harvey’s version of events, and Ra received a two-year prison sentence....
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/a-michigan-court-case-shows-the-right-of-armed-self-defense-is-broader-than-you-might-think/ (https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/a-michigan-court-case-shows-the-right-of-armed-self-defense-is-broader-than-you-might-think/)
-
That case should never have been prosecuted; whoever at the DA's office participated in that decision and prosecution should be starting barista training at Starchuck's.
-
The jury was instructed only on the affirmative defense of self-defense through the use of “deadly force.†To prove that deadly force was appropriate, a defendant has to prove that she “reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.†(Emphasis added.)
Under this reasoning, a person could brandish a weapon only when she has the legal right to fire the weapon.
The court of appeals, however, said that’s not the law. When one brandishes a weapon without firing it, they don’t, in fact, use “deadly force.†They use nondeadly force, and the legal standard for the use of nondeadly force only requires the defendant to prove that she “reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.†(Emphasis added.)
Under this reasoning, a person can brandish a weapon to prevent the imminent use of force from escalating to a threat of imminent death.
Sounds like the Judge has a good grasp of the 2nd Amendment and what does and doesn't constitute use of deadly force.
-
That case should never have been prosecuted; whoever at the DA's office participated in that decision and prosecution should be starting barista training at Starchuck's.
But when we point out miscarriages of justice like this where activist judges or in this case an over zealous DA's office use their powers to apply the law incorrectly and explain to others that this is why we don't trust any new laws regarding the 2A to be carried out fairly...we're called "paranoid". *****rollingeyes*****