Nice
I just like how this is reported:
Somewhere between a Food Lion and home, Temesha Greene noticed a van following her.
When she got to her driveway that August night, a man pulled out a gun.
Greene pulled out her own gun.
The man fired at her.
She fired back.
He missed.
She didn’t.
And the good news: No charges were filed against Greene. Mind you, she’d be in jail if this was New York or California.
November 6th, 2003 at 11:00 am
That’s EXCELLENT!
November 6th, 2003 at 1:11 pm
Would she really be in jail? I wasn’t aware that shooting someone in self-defense was a crime in any state.
November 6th, 2003 at 1:14 pm
Obviously, you forget the case of Goetz (charged with owning an unregistered firearm) or the 80 year old man from the bronx charged with possession of a weapon.
November 6th, 2003 at 2:21 pm
tgirsch: Self-defense is an odd thing. It’s an affirmative defense. You’re not denying you shot the guy. In effect, you’re saying “Yep. I shot him. No doubt about it. I’ve got the gun right here.”
The affirmative part is that – should it come to trial – it’s up to you to prove that you acted in self-defense.
November 6th, 2003 at 2:25 pm
I’m not sure Goetz is the best example. He shot two of the guys in the back, which is a stretch to call self-defense. Plus, per his own admission, after shooting him once, Goetz told one of his muggers “You don’t look too bad, here’s another,” and shot him a second time.
The 80-year-old was fined (I would agree inappropriately), but as far as I can see, he didn’t do any jail time.
November 6th, 2003 at 2:28 pm
Les:
True, but in virtually every case where I’ve seen the self-defense argument used, it’s been in little or no doubt that the accused actually did the shooting/killing. It’s just a question of whether the action was justifiable.
November 6th, 2003 at 3:40 pm
One of the survivors of the attack on Goetz was later convicted of rape. I reckon the woman in that case should have sued Goetz for negligence
November 6th, 2003 at 6:04 pm
I never said the people Goetz attacked were saints. I’m just saying it’s doubtful that he was “just an innocent bystander,” either.
November 7th, 2003 at 9:37 pm
Tgirsch:
Um, yeah. That’s what I was saying. 🙂
In other words, the righteous citizen who is defending himself doesn’t hide the body, throw the gun in the lake, and flee the scene. He calls 911 and asks for the police, then waits until they show up. So there’s no doubt he shot the guy.
Contrast that with the criminal who shoots someone, dumps the body, discards the gun, then denies he knew the guy, was somewhere else that night, etc. The burden is then on the state to prove means, motive, and opportunity, and the guy is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The citizen acting in self-defense has to make an affirmative case for self-defense, because he’s admitting to the shooting. The burden is on him instead of the state.