|
A Michigan Court Case Shows the Right of Armed Self-Defense Is Broader Than You Might Think
[National Review] Brandishing a weapon without firing it is sometimes the appropriate response to a threat.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 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. The case was immediately controversial, with critics of the verdict claiming that the case represented "yet another instance of a black gun owner, with the permits to legally carry, defending themselves against violence ‐ and getting punished for it." The NRA tweeted in support of Ra: Posted by: Besoeker 2019-08-22 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=548579 |