“Stand your ground” law fails when applied to a black man

[Dominus Atheos]

Salon

As the shooting death of Trayvon Martin and the failure of authorities to arrest his killer, George Zimmerman, continues to grab headlines, many conservatives and gun rights advocates insist that race has nothing to do with it. Some have also rallied to the defense of Florida’s “stand your ground” law, the self-defense legislation under which Zimmerman was able to avoid arrest. Yet not all stand your ground claims are so successful. Not too far from Sanford, Fla., a black man named John McNeil is serving a life sentence for shooting Brian Epp, a white man who trespassed and attacked him at his home in Georgia, another stand your ground state.

It all began in early 2005, when McNeil and his wife, Anita, hired Brian Epp’s construction company to build a new house in Cobb County, Ga. The McNeils testified that Epp was difficult to work with, which led to heated confrontations. They eventually decided to close on the house early to rid their lives of Epp, whom they found increasingly threatening. At the closing, both parties agreed that Epp would have 10 days to complete the work, after which he would stay away from the property, but he failed to keep up his end of the bargain.

On Dec. 6, 2005, John McNeil’s 15-year-old son, La’Ron, notified his dad over the phone that a man he didn’t recognize was lurking in the backyard. When La’Ron told the man to leave, an argument broke out. McNeil was still on the phone and immediately recognized Epp’s voice. According to La’Ron’s testimony, Epp pointed a folding utility knife at La’Ron’s face and said, “[w]hy don’t you make me leave?” at which point McNeil told his son to go inside and wait while he called 911 and headed home.

According to McNeil’s testimony, when he pulled up to his house, Epp was next door grabbing something from his truck and stuffing it in his pocket. McNeil quickly grabbed his gun from the glove compartment in plain view of Epp who was coming at him “fast.” McNeil jumped out of the car and fired a warning shot at the ground insisting that Epp back off. Instead of retreating, Epp charged at McNeil while reaching for his pocket, so McNeil fired again, this time fatally striking Epp in the head. (Epp was found to have a folding knife in his pocket, although it was shut.)

The McNeils weren’t the only ones who felt threatened by Epp. David Samson and Libby Jones, a white couple who hired Epp to build their home in 2004, testified that they carried a gun as a “precaution” around Epp because of his threatening behavior. According to Jones, Epp nearly hit her when she expressed dissatisfaction with his work at a weekly meeting. The couple even had a lawyer write a letter warning Epp to stay away from their property. Samson testified that after they fired him, Epp would park his car across the street and watch their house, saying “it got to the point where my wife and I were in total fear of this man.”

After a neighbor across the street who witnessed the encounter corroborated McNeil’s account, police determined that it was a case of self-defense and did not charge him in the death. Nevertheless, almost a year later Cobb County District Attorney Patrick Head decided to prosecute McNeil for murder. In 2006, he was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

McNeil’s attorney Mark Yurachek told Salon that “DAs throughout the country enjoy that kind of flexibility of deciding who to prosecute, but it’s curious that he took a year to do it.” While he said there’s no way to know what swayed the DA to prosecute, Yurachek revealed that letters, which he obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, were written to the DA’s office demanding that McNeil be charged. “They were mostly emails from people cajoling prosecutors to investigate,” says Yurachek. “One was from Epp’s widow. Others were written anonymously.”

In 2008, McNeil appealed his case to the Georgia Supreme Court with all but one of the seven justices upholding his conviction. The sole dissent came from Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears who argued, “the State failed to disprove John McNeil’s claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.” She went on to write:

Even viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence was overwhelming in showing that a reasonable person in McNeil’s shoes would have believed that he was subject to an imminent physical attack by an aggressor possessing a knife and that it was necessary to use deadly force to protect himself from serious bodily injury or a forcible felony. Under the facts of this case, it would be unreasonable to require McNeil to wait until Epp succeeded in attacking him, thereby potentially disarming him, getting control of the gun, or stabbing him before he could legally employ deadly force to defend himself. This is not what Georgia law requires.

As a leading gun rights state, Georgia has both a stand your ground law that permits citizens to use deadly force “only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury,” as well as a Castle Doctrine law, which justifies the use of deadly force in defense of one’s home.

Thus far, gun rights advocates such as the NRA and former Cobb County congressional Rep. Newt Gingrich have been silent on McNeil’s conviction, though it’s unclear whether they are aware of the case. The NRA did not immediately return a call seeking comment. Still, Rev. William Barber, president of the North Carolina NAACP State Conference, argues, “The NRA would be screaming about the injustice of his conviction if John had been white and shot a black assailant that came at him on his property armed with a knife.” (McNeil grew up in North Carolina, where the local NAACP chapter, led by Barber, was the first to pick up on his case in Georgia.)

Barber was clear that the NAACP remains firmly against stand your ground laws because “they give cover to those who may engage in racial profiling and racialized violence,” adding that “There is a history and legacy of discriminatory application of the law” that continues to this day. “African-Americans are caught in curious position. On one hand, we fight against stand your ground laws, but once the laws are on the books they aren’t applied to us.”

Civil rights activist Markel Hutchins agrees and has filed a federal lawsuit challenging Georgia’s stand your ground law because the law is not applied equally to African-Americans. He accuses the courts of accepting “the race of a victim as evidence to establish the reasonableness of an individual’s fear in cases of justifiable homicide.”

Meanwhile, Barber argues that McNeil’s treatment stands in stark contrast to that of George Zimmerman, who has been afforded the benefit of the doubt despite his victim being unarmed. “America’s always had a difficult issue dealing with race, so rather than face it when it’s exposed, the tendency by some is to try and dismiss it. But the reality is you do not see this kind of miscarriage of justice when it comes to whites.” He adds, “John’s whole life has been taken away from him. His wife is very ill with cancer and she has lost a husband, his sons have lost a father and society has lost a man that was contributing to his community.”

[TheFeniX]

For the record, this event happened in 2005. Georgia passed their "Stand your ground" law in 2006.

Still, I can't think of any other way McNeil could have tried to diffuse the situation.

This whole case is pretty surreal

Dr. Brian Frist, the Chief Medical Examiner of Cobb County, later determined that the abrasions on Epp's face indicated that he had been shot at a distance of less than three feet.

With a gun pointed at him, he closed to less than 3-feet. Epp was fucking batshit crazy. Armed or not: that guy was fucking dangerous. And McNeil showed a fuckload more restraint than I would have in that situation. Then again, I wouldn't have gone near the crazy fuck unless he tried to kick down the door.

They seem to have busted him with this line of reasoning:

(despite claim of self-defense, evidence supported felony murder conviction based on aggravated assault where defendant retrieved pistol in anticipation of confrontation and told victim to leave before shooting him)

Loading a weapon to protect your family now constitutes assault. Giving an attacker the option to leave before shooting him is assault. Stay classy Prosecutors.... stay classy.

And

and that McNeil lied to police when he claimed that he had shot Epp because Epp had “pulled a knife on him” during the confrontation

Whether he intentionally lied or the officer/operator misinterpreted his statement is unclear. Epp pulled a knife on McNeil's son, not him. But I wouldn't put it past McNeil to fumble when stating this or the officer to have misheard him.

I won't argue any racial motivation. I'll argue... stay the fuck out of Georgia.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Loading a weapon to protect your family now constitutes assault. Giving an attacker the option to leave before shooting him is assault. Stay classy Prosecutors.... stay classy.

No. Loading your weapon in anticipation of "whip his ass" is assault. I agree that this is unfortun ate but it seems the law doesn't care about the totality. It only cares about your mindset at the time and what motivated your actions. He did a terrible job articulating his his mindset which seemed to be not one of defense but one of confrontation. If he would have said "I confronted the trespasser because I was concerned for the safety of my son. I loaded my pistol to protect myself because the trespasser had already pulled a knife on my son."

An officer in Utah was found unjustified in a shooting last year for failing to articulate the proper mindset. He fired at a moving vehicle that had already rammed another police vehicle, which is considered an act of deadly force. The officer stated he felt his life was in danger when he fired. The problem was his position was not in the path of the vehicle so it was unreasonable to think his life was in danger. However, had he said that he fired to protect the lives of other officers then he would have been found justified. Other officers were out of their vehicles on containment at this time and several were in a position to get hit. The shooting officer did not include that into his mind set. So, under the totality of the circumstances the shooting was justified.

[TheFeniX]

No. Loading your weapon in anticipation of "whip his ass" is assault. I agree that this is unfortun ate but it seems the law doesn't care about the totality. It only cares about your mindset at the time and what motivated your actions. He did a terrible job articulating his his mindset which seemed to be not one of defense but one of confrontation. If he would have said "I confronted the trespasser because I was concerned for the safety of my son. I loaded my pistol to protect myself because the trespasser had already pulled a knife on my son."

So, we expect people who chose to defend themselves to lie to police ("My gun was already loaded and I had it on me") and chose their words carefully when people threaten their children with knives? Otherwise, prosecutors will pick up on anything they can to pad their conviction numbers. Sounds like Texas in 2004 during a certain class I took.

If we're going to go all Jedi mind-reading on this situation: what about the mind-set of a man who pulls a knife on someone then goes after another person who is not only armed, but has shown he will fire his weapon? I could assume he just really wants to give me a hug, or more realistically that he thinks I'm bluffing or that he's Superman. Either way, he has no good intentions planned.

In a sane world, whatever happens before the fact that isn't relevant should be treated as so. A man armed himself for protection, gave ground to an attacker he's positive is armed, then fires when he finally gets to 3-feet. Now we armchair quarter-back his decision to protect himself and his family from a violent and/or deranged man. See, this kind of situation is why even with all the bullshit, stand your ground laws are a good idea. Even in the Martin/Zimmerman case: whatever happened before hand doesn't matter if Zimmerman abandoned the encounter and then was attacked and knocked down and beaten in the face and head (supposing that's actually what happened). No prosecutors labeling gun owners as "nuts" and "bombs waiting to explode" and bringing up everything they can to poison the jury. I honestly don't give a shit if McNeil said he would beat the guy to death with his own shoes and was dropping racial slurs on the phone: it's not fucking relevant in the situation that cropped up.

The entire "assault" charge was specifically tacked on so they could show he was acting "illegally." With this dumbfuck law on the books, the mere act of drawing a gun on someone who is trying to kill you (pointing a gun at or near someone is assault, as is brandishing a weapon, and sometimes even clenched fists) would make any self-defense claim invalid: so yea, stupid fucking law. Then they attacked his credibility because he either lied, mispoke, honestly believed, or the officer misunderstood the line about "he pulled a knife on me." Yet we have an eyewitness stating:

An eyewitness who was across the street heard McNeil and Epp arguing loudly.   A few minutes later he heard a loud pop and saw smoke and McNeil pointing his hand toward the ground and stepping backward.   Epp was in the yard between McNeil's house and the one next door and walking toward McNeil.   McNeil continued to back up with his hands pointed toward the ground and said “Back up, I am not playing with you.”   Epp increased his speed toward McNeil and McNeil raised his gun and fired at Epp's head.

But we can't have people defending themselves on their own property, so we'll just resort to character assassination to get a conviction.

The real travesty is Epps could have just walked the fuck away and he'd still be running around harassing the shit out of people and making their lives miserable.

An officer in Utah was found unjustified in a shooting last year for failing to articulate the proper mindset. He fired at a moving vehicle that had already rammed another police vehicle, which is considered an act of deadly force. The officer stated he felt his life was in danger when he fired. The problem was his position was not in the path of the vehicle so it was unreasonable to think his life was in danger. However, had he said that he fired to protect the lives of other officers then he would have been found justified. Other officers were out of their vehicles on containment at this time and several were in a position to get hit. The shooting officer did not include that into his mind set. So, under the totality of the circumstances the shooting was justified.

Irrelevant since his life was not in danger. It also kind of proves my point: what happened before the incident isn't relevant if you aren't in danger at this very moment. I don't think there's any way you could claim Epps didn't have bad intentions. I don't believe even the prosecutor tried to argue that point, only garbage about "not retreating far enough," "mindset," and other stuff prosecutors latched onto before stand your ground laws stopped them from doing so.

[Kamakazie Sith]

So, we expect people who chose to defend themselves to lie to police ("My gun was already loaded and I had it on me") and chose their words carefully when people threaten their children with knives? Otherwise, prosecutors will pick up on anything they can to pad their conviction numbers. Sounds like Texas in 2004 during a certain class I took.

Did you miss my example? My example did not include any "lies" as far as I can tell from his mindset.

If we're going to go all Jedi mind-reading on this situation: what about the mind-set of a man who pulls a knife on someone then goes after another person who is not only armed, but has shown he will fire his weapon? I could assume he just really wants to give me a hug, or more realistically that he thinks I'm bluffing or that he's Superman. Either way, he has no good intentions planned.

His mindset was determined by his words prior to confrontation. No jedi mind reading required. To say the dead mans intentions were of deadly violence when his knife was clipped to his pocket is a long stretch.

In a sane world, whatever happens before the fact that isn't relevant should be treated as so. A man armed himself for protection, gave ground to an attacker he's positive is armed, then fires when he finally gets to 3-feet. Now we armchair quarter-back his decision to protect himself and his family from a violent and/or deranged man. See, this kind of situation is why even with all the bullshit, stand your ground laws are a good idea. Even in the Martin/Zimmerman case: whatever happened before hand doesn't matter if Zimmerman abandoned the encounter and then was attacked and knocked down and beaten in the face and head (supposing that's actually what happened). No prosecutors labeling gun owners as "nuts" and "bombs waiting to explode" and bringing up everything they can to poison the jury. I honestly don't give a shit if McNeil said he would beat the guy to death with his own shoes and was dropping racial slurs on the phone: it's not fucking relevant in the situation that cropped up.

I agree. The totality should always be taken into consideration.

The entire "assault" charge was specifically tacked on so they could show he was acting "illegally." With this dumbfuck law on the books, the mere act of drawing a gun on someone who is trying to kill you (pointing a gun at or near someone is assault, as is brandishing a weapon, and sometimes even clenched fists) would make any self-defense claim invalid: so yea, stupid fucking law. Then they attacked his credibility because he either lied, mispoke, honestly believed, or the officer misunderstood the line about "he pulled a knife on me."

I don't view McNeils actions as unreasonable. In fact, I think they were prudent given that Epp was ignoring commands. However, the prosecution made McNeil appear like he was being the aggressor by brandishing the firearm after making statements that he intended on having a confrontation.

But we can't have people defending themselves on their own property, so we'll just resort to character assassination to get a conviction.

The real travesty is Epps could have just walked the fuck away and he'd still be running around harassing the shit out of people and making their lives miserable.

Irrelevant since his life was not in danger. It also kind of proves my point: what happened before the incident isn't relevant if you aren't in danger at this very moment. I don't think there's any way you could claim Epps didn't have bad intentions. I don't believe even the prosecutor tried to argue that point, only garbage about "not retreating far enough," "mindset," and other stuff prosecutors latched onto before stand your ground laws stopped them from doing so.

It is relevant.
UTAH CODE
76-2-404. Peace officer's use of deadly force.
(1) A peace officer, or any person acting by his command in his aid and assistance, is justified in using deadly force when:
(a) the officer is acting in obedience to and in accordance with the judgment of a competent court in executing a penalty of death under Subsection 77-18-5.5(3) or (4);
(b) effecting an arrest or preventing an escape from custody following an arrest, where the officer reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by escape; and
(i) the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a felony offense involving the infliction or threatened infliction of death or serious bodily injury; or
(ii) the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to others if apprehension is delayed; or
(c) the officer reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person.
(2) If feasible, a verbal warning should be given by the officer prior to any use of deadly force under Subsection (1)(b) or (1)(c).

Articulation is critical in deadly force situations.

[fgalkin]

(b) effecting an arrest or preventing an escape from custody following an arrest, where the officer reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by escape; and
(i) the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a felony offense involving the infliction or threatened infliction of death or serious bodily injury;

Wait, so does that mean that in Utah, if a violent felon makes a run for it, you can gun him down for fleeing arrest?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[TheFeniX]

Did you miss my example? My example did not include any "lies" as far as I can tell from his mindset.

I saw your example. But that's not what he said, so saying something else would generally assume he's lying.

His mindset was determined by his words prior to confrontation. No jedi mind reading required. To say the dead mans intentions were of deadly violence when his knife was clipped to his pocket is a long stretch.

Exactly, prior. But I have to ask, what intentions could Epp have had? A reasonable person would not continue advancing on an armed person who has shown he's willing to use lethal force to defend himself.

If McNeil had waited another second and Epp laid a hand on McNeil's gun, we wouldn't even be talking about this. Epp would have then had access to a deadly weapon and this scenario was talked about specifically in my original CHL class. That's dumb. Investigators routinely scrutinized every action and thought-process of the shooter and mostly ignored the mind-set and actions of the attacker.

It is relevant.
Articulation is critical in deadly force situations.

Ok, I see the point you were trying to make now. The difference is that the officer's mindset was relevant to the shooting as it took place: he fired because X. McNiels mind-set of "I'll whip his ass" means nothing because that isn't why he shot Epp. He shot Epp because he felt his life was threatened by a man who pulled a knife earlier and decided to advance upon him, trespassing onto McNeils property while a gun is pointed at him.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Fima: I would assume he's saying that... I recall one of our European posters some years ago saying that the police can even shoot unarmed fleeing violent felons in the back. I think it was in Slovenia, and I might be wrong about the details, but imagine it as sort of a contract where if there is hard, legally proved evidence (like an escapee or flagrante delicto) that someone committed a violent crime and they're about to escape into general society, the police there can legally do anything necessary to keep that from happening... If you surrender, you're safe, otherwise.. It's a social justice issue rather than a justice issue, essentially, you can't allow broader harm by letting the subject go. That's what I garnered, anyway, and I'm probably wrong in a fair number of details, but it wouldn't surprise me if that's the case.

[TheFeniX]

(b) effecting an arrest or preventing an escape from custody following an arrest, where the officer reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by escape; and
(i) the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a felony offense involving the infliction or threatened infliction of death or serious bodily injury;

Wait, so does that mean that in Utah, if a violent felon makes a run for it, you can gun him down for fleeing arrest?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

To expand on Zeon's point, there's also a difference between fleeing from a cop and fleeing after you've been placed under arrest. There was something on the news about this in Texas years back after a fleeing arestee was shot. The argument was that since he was in police custody, it was akin to a "jail-break" situation where officers can and will use deadly force to prevent prison escapes from unarmed convicts due to public safety. Whether this law specifically pretains to that, I don't know.

[fgalkin]

Here's the thing though, the law states

effecting an arrest or preventing an escape from custody following an arrest

So, it's clearly both, and the only requirement is that "the officer reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by escape" and that the officer believes that the suspect is dangerous. So, if the suspect is fleeing and the officer is out of shape and can't chase him down, he is within his rights to just shoot him in the back?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Simon_Jester]

If the officer is in shape and so is the prisoner, the officer being able to chase down the prisoner is far from certain.

Also, the prisoner may be running to something- allies, a weapon, something he can improvise as a weapon. It may be that the risk to the officer is justified, I'm not actually denying that, but it's still true that he's putting himself at risk when he chases an unarmed suspect.

[Kamakazie Sith]

(b) effecting an arrest or preventing an escape from custody following an arrest, where the officer reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by escape; and
(i) the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a felony offense involving the infliction or threatened infliction of death or serious bodily injury;

Wait, so does that mean that in Utah, if a violent felon makes a run for it, you can gun him down for fleeing arrest?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Not just a violent felon. The officer must have probable cause that the suspect has committed a felony offense involving the infliction or threatened infliction of death or serious bodily injury OR the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or others if apprehension is delayed OR the officer reasonablly believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the officers or another person.

Basically, the code is designed with the safety of the public in mind. Your right to due process does not out weigh the right of others to live.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Here's the thing though, the law states

effecting an arrest or preventing an escape from custody following an arrest

So, it's clearly both, and the only requirement is that "the officer reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by escape" and that the officer believes that the suspect is dangerous. So, if the suspect is fleeing and the officer is out of shape and can't chase him down, he is within his rights to just shoot him in the back?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

If being dangerous means this suspect poses a threat of death or serious bodily injury. Yes.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I saw your example. But that's not what he said, so saying something else would generally assume he's lying.

Uh. I guess we're having a miscommunication. Why did McNeil arm himself with a handgun? It's because his son told him that Epp pulled a knife on him. Why did McNeil rush home? It is because Epp pulled a knife on his son so he rushed home to protect his son. When McNeil articulates that Epp grabbed something from his truck and then came at him fast while saying "come on' that isn't articulation to support the use of deadly force.

McNeil had poor articulation of the facts for his use of deadly force. We know of what facts he was aware of but he doesn't articulate those facts as to why he determined he needed to arm himself with a handgun. That's why I presented the officer example to you. The officer would have been justified if he would have articulated the totality of the situation instead of just part of it.

Exactly, prior. But I have to ask, what intentions could Epp have had? A reasonable person would not continue advancing on an armed person who has shown he's willing to use lethal force to defend himself.

His intention could have been to talk it out. The problem here is that McNeil is the one that escalated to deadly force without a deadly threat from Epp. Had Epp had a gun and pointed it at McNeil for brandishing and then had to shoot McNeil for pulling the pistol then Epp would have likely been found justified.

If McNeil had waited another second and Epp laid a hand on McNeil's gun, we wouldn't even be talking about this. Epp would have then had access to a deadly weapon and this scenario was talked about specifically in my original CHL class. That's dumb. Investigators routinely scrutinized every action and thought-process of the shooter and mostly ignored the mind-set and actions of the attacker.

McNeil didn't articulate that though. McNeil's articulation can be broken down into 1 - McNeil observes Epp remove something from his car. 2 - Epp begins to advance on McNeil. 3 - Epp makes the statement "Come on" and begins advances faster. 4 - McNeil fires a warning shot. 5 - McNeil shoots and kills Epp. Not anywhere in there is an articulation of a deadly threat.

Ok, I see the point you were trying to make now. The difference is that the officer's mindset was relevant to the shooting as it took place: he fired because X. McNiels mind-set of "I'll whip his ass" means nothing because that isn't why he shot Epp. He shot Epp because he felt his life was threatened by a man who pulled a knife earlier and decided to advance upon him, trespassing onto McNeils property while a gun is pointed at him.

It means everything when Epp fails to articulate a deadly threat that caused him to fire.

[Simon_Jester]

Wouldn't a non-crappy lawyer have alerted Epp to this?

I mean, if we all know Epp was facing a deadly threat to his own family and fired for that reason, I would think that his lawyer must have been completely asleep at the switch (or absent) when he made those remarks. Surely, someone who knew the facts of the case should have told him he could go to jail even when the facts were on his side, if he happened to describe them in an improper way.

All the talk about "failure to articulate" sits very poorly with me, when in other threads we've seen several complaints about "nitpicking" people's words.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Wouldn't a non-crappy lawyer have alerted Epp to this?

I mean, if we all know Epp was facing a deadly threat to his own family and fired for that reason, I would think that his lawyer must have been completely asleep at the switch (or absent) when he made those remarks. Surely, someone who knew the facts of the case should have told him he could go to jail even when the facts were on his side, if he happened to describe them in an improper way.

All the talk about "failure to articulate" sits very poorly with me, when in other threads we've seen several complaints about "nitpicking" people's words.

The law states that you can use deadly force to protect yourself if YOU reasonably fear you're in danger of serious bodily injury or death. Now, I didn't make it clear at the start of this thread but I think the courts should take into consideration the totality of the circumstances. Unfortunately, they do not. This is why I cited the officer example. It happens to police as well.

[Simon_Jester]

I think you missed what I was getting at.

If it is simply a matter of articulation, of explaining that I thought I was in danger because of circumstances XYZ, or that I thought someone else was in imminent danger because of circumstances ABC...

I would think any competent defense attorney would make a point of ensuring that I got this out and explained it. Now, this is not to say there's no such thing as bad lawyers, and this is not to say "ohmigod the system is corrupt!" It just seems really... dumb to me, that a lawyer who's supposed to know the facts of his client's case, understand what happened, and stick up for the client would fail to do the groundwork to make it clear what the defendant was thinking and why they would reasonably fear injury or death.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I think you missed what I was getting at.

If it is simply a matter of articulation, of explaining that I thought I was in danger because of circumstances XYZ, or that I thought someone else was in imminent danger because of circumstances ABC...

I would think any competent defense attorney would make a point of ensuring that I got this out and explained it. Now, this is not to say there's no such thing as bad lawyers, and this is not to say "ohmigod the system is corrupt!" It just seems really... dumb to me, that a lawyer who's supposed to know the facts of his client's case, understand what happened, and stick up for the client would fail to do the groundwork to make it clear what the defendant was thinking and why they would reasonably fear injury or death.

Yeah that is kinda where my sense of "WTF" in this situation comes from to. I mean fuck, if the lawyer was that inept, Epp would have a good case for getting a new trial on the basis of ineffectiveness of counsel I should think.