“An argument ensued, during which time Bowles approached Collins’ vehicle and reached through the driver’s side window. Collins pushed him away and grabbed his gun to scare Bowles. During the altercation, the gun went off,” according to the court document.
via salina.com – Stand Your Ground Law Kills Case – an online service of the Salina Journal.
The “victim:, one Desmond Bowles was a former worker who had been told to stay the hell away from the property. The day of the incident, Desmond Bowles got drunk, got in a three-wheeler, drove to the property he had been told not to go, started to argue with the “attacker” (David Collins) who was inside his vehicle. The “victim” reached inside the vehicle and proceeded to attack the David Collins at which time the firearm was produced and a shot was fired injuring Desmond Bowles.
So my question is: Why even bring charges against David Collins? He was in his property, inside his vehicle, was attacked, defended himself and yet he gets charged only for the prosecution never getting around to present the evidence of his alleged culpability to the judge.
It might be my perception, but I see an ugly trend here. Prosecuting Attorneys seem to automatically charge anybody who uses a gun in self-defense just because they can. It is like they are saying: “I can’t take your guns away but I am sure as hell make your life miserable if you have to use them.”
It might be our new battlefront.
Lots of jurisdictions seek to make the process the punishment. Spend a year or two and every dollar you’ve ever accumulated defending yourself against a murder charge, and you’ve “lost” even if you’re acquitted.
That’s why it’s so important to have a compelling narrative of innocence and get kicked out of the criminal justice pipeline at the earliest possible opportunity. The deeper you get drawn into the gears, the harder it is to get out.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Very good point. It’s a warning to all that guns will get you in trouble.
I’d rather be at trial than dead, and guns help me avoid the latter.
My point is merely that the stakes at play for shooting someone are high.
The prudent person conducts himself accordingly, and well within the boundaries of lawful self-defense.
That is, of course, if he even knows the boundaries of lawful self-defense. “Fools go where angels fear to tread,” and all that.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
They can try to make our lives miserable if we use our guns.
And we can press charges for harassment, frivolous lawsuits, and abuse of the legal system when they do. Anybody remember Jack Thompson?
Who wants to be the Jack Thompson of gun control?