That claim is central to the “stand your ground” defense being floated by the Oklahoma man charged with shooting an unarmed woman in the back as she ran away from his home after tearing down one of his Nazi flags.
In a court motion arguing that he is immune from prosecution, Alexander Feaster, 46, claims that he was fearful of an “imminent Antifa attack on his home” last June when he shot Kyndal McVey, 27, with his AR-15 rifle.
Shot in the back? He'll lose and weaken the stand your ground defense in the process.
ReplyDeleteIf he looses this motion, I assume it's open season on all flags, signs, etc. that I don't like...eg: gay rainbo, blm, antifa fists and et al.. It's the law of unintended consequences! Karma is a bitch.
ReplyDeleteIt is still wrong to steal a flag, it is just that the penalty is less than summary execution at the hands of an idiot. I suspect that this will have little effect on the stand your ground law, since it had nothing to do with fear for the nut jobs life, and everything to do with him being stupid.
DeleteWhy does this episode seem staged? It's just too wrapped up with a bow on top for lots of pet issues all at once.
ReplyDeleteMy first thought exactly.
Delete12ga rubber rounds please…..
ReplyDeleteNazi guy needs to work on his Gray man.
ReplyDeleteHe’s too stupid.
DeleteAntifa are nazis or nazi supporters. both groups believe in facism. why did he have a problem?
ReplyDeleteWho cares how itty-bitty she may be, she's a fucking thief. Not your shit so leave it alone, pretty simple.
ReplyDeleteJD
re -- shot 'in the back'
ReplyDelete.
This happens frequently.
The trigger is squeezed while the whack-job is turning during the assault.
.
Irregardless, Mister Feaster lacks 'qualified immunity'... particularly since he initiated the confrontation by his use of 'freedom of speech'... in his home... knowing full-well it would cause whack-job/whack-jobs to 'see red!'.
.
The press-release shows remarkable restraint in not conspicuously proclaiming "...an AR-15 semi-automatic weapon of war intended to 'mow down' thousands with a single high-capacity magazine loaded with 'cop-killing' cartridges..."
One socialist kills another socialist.
ReplyDeleteWhite chick so its a toss up. Dindu and he's away or life.
ReplyDeleteWhen did "stand your ground" become equated with an permission to shoot? Was it the Trayvon Martin case when the media skewed it so much, even though it was never used in defense? My understanding is all it means is that you're not obligated to try running away before defending yourself from grave bodily harm or death. It still doesn't give you the right to shoot to someone who is not a threat.
ReplyDeleteStand your ground is a mis- statement of the legal concept that a person attacked has no duty to retreat before defending himself.
ReplyDelete(Civilian) Self-defense is generally controlled by each States' law and court interpretations.
As it says, self defense applies to dangerous attacks on you personally. (Defense of others has different requirements).
Self defense applies during the attack, not after.
The actions taken in your defense generally must be reasonable, which is dependent on the facts of your physical condition / limitations, perception of the threat, and the mechanisms / ability you have to respond to the threat at the time. You generally do not have to do what is impossible for you. This is the other side of your attacker "taking you as they find you", eg: ifvyou have brittle bone disease and an attacker punches you in a way that would not badly injure another person, but you die, their act should be seen as a deliberate homicide.
It could be seen as reasonable for a small, weak / old person to go to a gun first to defend against a strongarm attack, as they have no other response available to them.
Most states do not allow lethal action in defense of property, and (AFAIK) none permit it once the attacker has begun to retreat, unless that movement is one to improve a position from which to continue his attack.
This assh*le fails on two major factors. 1, this was a property crime. 2, the thief was running away, and assh*le was not in danger anymore, if he ever was.
Defense of others is MUCH more dangerous for the "defender" as in most states you would be considered an intervener, and held legally responsible for knowing what the situation actually is, rather than what it looks like to you, the basic standard in self-defense.
Eg: if you hear a fight in your yard, come out with your gun, and see someone who looks like a gang-banger fighting someone dressed as a priest, and you kill the gangbanger, you are responsible for murder of a police officer, even though you had no way to know that he was an undercover. (Northern Indiana case about 10 yrs ago).
Read your States' laws, read the case law, (searchable database free at cornell.edu), talk to your lawyer (you have one, don't you?), study what your local prosecutors'attitudes are, and then consider your response(s) to the many possible situations in your own life.
GET A LAWYER PRESENT BEFORE YOU SAY ANYTHING BEYOND YOUR NAME TO THE POLICE AFTER ANY MAJOR INTERACTION WITH THEM.
This is general advice from public documents. This is not legal advice. For that you need to get your own attorney. DO IT.
John in Indy