The rule of law and due process applies to everyone, even people with long criminal histories. Even people who have bad reputations in dangerous, gang infested, drug dealing dystopias. In 2016, Saeve Evans was involved in a gunfight. A 16-year-old girl was killed. Saeve Evans legal defense was self defense.
Saeve Evans has had many interactions with DC police. There was the D.C. kidnapping and murder case. Saeve has prior felony convictions. The video says Saeve has "more bodies than I have toes".
Here is a youtubevideo about one of the recent incidents Saeve Evans was involved in. Saeve must have been released pending the appeal of the 2016 case, because the video incident happened on August 1, 2023.
Saeve Evans is still a citizen of the United States. He is protected by the Constitution.
On November 25, 2016, Saeve Evans was in a gunfight during which a 16-year-old girl was killed. During the gunfight, he was briefly caught on surveillance video with a gun in his hand. The defense argued Saeve Evans had fired the mini-Uzi in self-defense. Evans is a convicted felon who had been shot multiple times before this incident. Evans was about 30-years-old at the time. Saeve Evans surrendered to police on November 29. Evans demanded a jury trial. The jury found Evans not guilty of everything but the illegal possession of a gun.
DC law allows even violent felons to use guns for self defense, as an exception to their more general ban on possessing guns. The video shows Evans had the pistol in his possession for at least three seconds after the gunfight was over. The police were not able to prove Evans had the pistol in his possession before he could legitimately use self defense. The people on the other side of the gunfight were never identified. The judge ruled the three seconds were long enough to convict Evans of illegal gun possession.
Evans was convicted. Evans appealed to the DC Court of appeals. The opinion was rendered on November 16 of 2023. It was a split decision on basic self-defense rights. From courthousenews.com:
DEAHL, Associate Judge: The otherwise illegal possession of a firearm may be justified, so as not to be criminal, if the weapon is held in lawful self-defense. This case presents the question of when precisely that legal justification ends—whether it is the instant a person realizes the threat has subsided or if it instead extends to a period allowing the person to reasonably relinquish the weapon. The trial court instructed the jury, as the government now maintains, that the justification ends the moment the person appreciates that the threat animating the right to self-defense has subsided, so that they must effectively drop the gun in that instant or otherwise lose their justification defense. In appealing his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm, Saeve Evans counters that the justification defense logically extends to a short period after the person realizes the threat has subsided, so that they have a reasonable opportunity to promptly dispossess themselves of the weapon. We agree with Evans and reverse his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm.
Even convicted felons with long histories of interactions with the police have the right to defend themselves from those with homicidal intent. The DC jury was unclear how long would be acceptable for Evans to hold onto a firearm he had just used to defend his life. The judge in DC said no time at all. Two of three judges on the DC circuit said some time must be allowed for the defendant to reasonably disarm. In this hard case, two judges on the three judge panel came down in favor of self defense.
©2023 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
Posts
2 comments:
More gun control nonsense, from a judge this time! If the judge thought 3 seconds was too long for him to hold on to the gun after the shooting, was 2 seconds too long? How about 1 second? And what was he supposed to do? Lay the gun down on the ground where anyone, even a child could reach it? The nonsense here is just amazing!!!
Another illogical verdict with a bad result: They appear to prefer he drop the gun and walk away, leaving it there for another criminal to come along and pick up and later use in a crime.
This one is worse than the Alan Colie case, where the jury and judge apparently think you should be required to beg your assailant to step outside before you can use a gun in self-defense.
Post a Comment