OldMarksman
Staff
Begging your pardon, but appellate decisions define the meaning of the law.
No.
Even in states in which the code says that (i. e., where the term "fear" is used in the statute), appellate rulings, which do in fact take precedent over the "black" law, say that one's threshold for trepidation does not enter into the question of justification.
What the laws do "say" is the following: "you" are justified if (1) you had reason to believe that you were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm; (2) a reasonable person, knowing what you knew at the time, would have believed the same thing; and (3) you actually believed same. They also "say" that you must present at least some evidence on each of the elements of self defense.
Hmmm....
The only "facts "that have been presented is that someone has committed what would be a criminal act in the absence of justification, and that that someone had not been threatened.
Yet, you say going in, and without having heard all of the facts of the case, that you would vote to not convict that person of that crime, had he or she been charged.
Perhaps that is because you believe that people drawing guns without justification under the law is acceptable, or perhaps because of where you read the account, you feel some kind of affinity for the person who would be the defendant. We cannot tell. Of course, none of us here would likely ever be empaneled on the jury.
It is likely that other jurors, having heard the charges and the testimony of whomever reported the act, would go in with an equally strong bias against the defendant. Why? Ethnicity, having sons the same age as the persons in question, being of the same socioeconomic background as those persons, an ingrained fear or dislike of firearms, a belief that only policemen should have guns, or a belief that because someone has been charged, he must be guilty....
A very sad commentary on many of the people who serve on juries, in my view.
Last edited:
