I always hope to avoid needing to engage in an act of violence, but that doesn't mean I don't expect to be disappointed from time to time. One thing I'm always concerned about is being faced with multiple attackers. There are so many ways such an encounter can go badly if you don't do everything just right, and I'm most definitely not well-trained enough to make sure everything goes just right.
But a man here in my home state of Georgia found himself in that situation and came out on top, despite being unarmed.
Four people followed an apparent stranger home to Buford from a night out in Atlanta to rob him, but the man wrestled a revolver from one of them and killed him, a Gwinnett County police detective testified Wednesday.
Corporal J.K. Bell spoke at a preliminary hearing for E’imod Sanchez Toboris Taylor and Brinson Bernard Crumbley, 23. Both are charged with felony murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault and a gun charge in the Sept. 5 death of Marvin Wiley, 23, of Atlanta, who police say was one of the robbers.
...Bell said the man fought Wiley for the silver revolver Wiley carried, killed him with it and shot Taylor.
Now, here's the kicker: the man in question is a convicted felon; thus, he's prohibited from even possessing a firearm.
However, with that said, the man is uncharged at this time, and I think that should remain the case. Much like the hero Dad in Bend, Oregon, the would-be victim here had a choice. He could either accept being killed or fight and protect himself. While felons can't own guns, they don't forfeit their right to self-defense. They have a right to protect themselves still, even if they can't own the best means of protecting themselves.
So, when a felon wrestles a gun away from one of four would-be robbers and uses that gun, well, that's just self-defense.
More than that, it's the lesser of two evils. The father in Bend ignored the gun-free schools laws in order to end a deadly encounter. In this case, the unnamed man used the gun he couldn't lawfully possess to protect his own life. In both cases, the other option was letting the bad guys win, and that's not really an option when human life is on the line, be it children or your own.
Honestly, it was good to see that the man wasn't charged.
First, he should have his gun rights, particularly if he's not a violent felon. Even if he is, he should still have them back. That should have happened the day he was done serving his time. If he were still dangerous, he should have been in prison for longer.
Second, there should never be a case where someone legitimately protecting themselves faces legal repercussions for their actions, with the possible exception of them starting something. A crook who breaks into a house and shoots the armed homeowner isn't legitimately protecting themselves, but the convicted felon who disarms one of his robbers and uses the gun? That's a whole different ball of wax.