Forbes:

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.

Gyrell Lee had been celebrating New Year’s Eve with his cousin Jamiel Walker in the latter’s home. Throughout the evening, a known troublemaker, Quinton Epps, came by and argued with Walker. When Epps returned with friends and became increasingly belligerent, Lee decided that he should get his gun from his car just in case matters got worse. Lee had completed his concealed carry class and was familiar with the law on gun use.

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.

Lee was subsequently arrested and charged with second-degree murder. He was a bystander who had acted in self-defense, but nevertheless local officials wanted to make an example of him.

At trial, Lee’s attorney argued that he had acted in self-defense. 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). The jury returned a verdict of guilty.

On appeal, the North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, holding that the trial judge had not committed “plain error” in charging the jury without bringing up the state’s “stand your ground” statute. In pertinent part, that law reads “A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if …he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.” The Court of Appeals wasn’t convinced that the judge had made an error because it wasn’t sure that the statute applied in Lee’s case due to its uncertainty that a public street outside his home counted as “a place he had the lawful right to be.”

Good grief …

Good grief indeed.  George Leef has done a good job with this article, and I appreciate his having followed and written on this issue.  We are reminded of a number of important things in this report.

First of all, we always encounter the opposition of statists when we advocate justified and righteous laws like stand your ground.  This is the first hurdle to overcome, as it is with proposed open carry laws, constitutional carry bill, and so on.

But if we get past the gaggle of gargoyles and demons in the houses of perdition that is the Senates of most states and the U.S. Senate, we face prosecutors.  The laws may say that we are recognized as having a right to self defense, but you must understand that these lawyers have been trained in the philosophy and legal theory of Stanley Fish and Jacques Derrida.  They don’t care about your God given rights or even what the law says.  If they want to, they will prosecute you if they think they can win.  Just because.  Shut up.

Then if you get past the hurdle of what the law says or how some recent law school graduate feels that day, you have the jury with which to contend.  Remember folks.  Juries are comprised by people who, on average, voted for Hillary Clinton, or had a hard time making up their minds, or who, if they didn’t vote for Hillary and Obama before her, couldn’t think their way out of a wet paper bag or hold attention long enough to listen to legal arguments in defense of someone like Mr. Lee.

Most jury members are too caught up thinking about their favorite night time sitcom to worry over things like putting someone away for life who simply shot in self defense.  Besides, that smartly dressed lawyer said he was guilty.  We’re law and order people.  He must be guilty.

When you entrust your life to a jury, it’s usually no better than entrusting it to a crooked judge.  That’s the sad state of the American system of “justice” today.  Stay away from crowds.  Think carefully about your actions.