| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Land of the Free |
| A Michigan Court Case Shows the Right of Armed Self-Defense Is Broader Than You Might Think |
| 2019-08-22 |
| [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 |
| #7 I do believe if i was going too pull a gun, it would be loaded. The only time my firearms are unloaded is when I clean them. |
| Posted by: Blackbeard Thratle8320 2019-08-22 14:54 |
| #6 Pretty sure if someone was using their vehicle to ram a vehicle with mine inside it would be Frank Hamer vs. Clyde. Now, impact already made, child out of vehicle, so long as opponent isn't trying to pull a Christine the threat is over I'd think. Her CC class should have covered brandishing even an unloaded firearm is bad bad bad. My instructor went on to note what Abu stated, could get really bad. Sounds like Arizona has it right, casual carry whether a firearm, or hammer, or hands ok - show intent to harm and blop, better have a reason. Now some people are unarmed, and some people are empty-handed, that is your person habitually involved in a sport/activity requiring physical contact, your person trained in a martial art, your person with a history of assault are likely to cause grave harm with a punch or grapple, thus they act the fool they are not unarmed but empty-handed. I'd call any aggressive motion where a hand goes above the shorter person's chest is a potentially grievous strike/grapple. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2019-08-22 12:52 |
| #5 Abu, I think you misspelled "fatal" as "embarrassing". |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2019-08-22 12:03 |
| #4 Seems to me that if you escalate with an unloaded gun, your adversary is liable to escalate with a loaded gun. That could be embarrassing. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2019-08-22 10:50 |
| #3 I do believe if i was going too pull a gun, it would be loaded. |
| Posted by: chris 2019-08-22 10:32 |
| #2 In the great state of Arizona our laws have changed. Brandishing, removing the weapon from the holster, is not a crime and you can walk around holding it out of the holster all day. When you point it at someone the laws change. Shows intent to use. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2019-08-22 10:21 |
| #1 Pointing a gun at somebody who allegedly rammed into your car, while reversing is and should be an offense. Siwat-u-Salama was not under immediate threat, from the stupid driver. And giving a Siwat-u-Salama a concealed permit was the real crime. This CAIR darling just gamed the system and came out on top. What America needs is blatant unfairness, to nip the enemies of state and citizens in the bud. And that is what some courts and cops try for. But everybody's not on the same page. Some have got bright lights in their eyes and the blue bug of idealism in their ass. |
| Posted by: Dron66046 2019-08-22 09:50 |