OK Court of Criminal Appeals: Limits On "Stand Your Ground"

OK Court of Criminal Appeals: Limits On "Stand Your Ground"

This is a discussion on OK Court of Criminal Appeals: Limits On "Stand Your Ground" within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; This is an old case that may have been discussed here. The shooter had the right to shoot the perp. One little problem cropped up: ...

Results 1 to 7 of 7
Like Tree2Likes
  • 2 Post By ccw9mm

Thread: OK Court of Criminal Appeals: Limits On "Stand Your Ground"

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017

    OK Court of Criminal Appeals: Limits On "Stand Your Ground"

    This is an old case that may have been discussed here.

    The shooter had the right to shoot the perp. One little problem cropped up: The perp was shot with an un-registered short barreled shotgun (SBS).

    Limitations on “Stand Your Ground” Defense Marshall's Oklahoma Law Blog

    In a 5-0 opinion, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that Dawkins is not entitled to the use of the “Stand Your Ground” Defense, because, at the time of the incident, Dawkins was engaged in an unlawful activity, namely possession of an illegally modified weapon. (The sawed off shotgun).
    From the courts decision:

    Appellant had an absolute right to use lethal force to repel an unlawful intruder. Therefore, he is immune from prosecution and his conviction for manslaughter, in violation of his legal rights, must be vacated and dismissed.


  2. #2
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,856
    Oh, what a wicked web we weave. After trying to make sense of the mumbo-jumbo legalize, it sounds like the conviction and sentencing was upheld:

    "3 After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, exhibits and briefs, we find that neither reversal nor modification are required by the law and evidence."

    The problem wasn't that he was a convicted felon so much as that he was in the act of violating the law by possession of an illegal weapon, therefore nullifying his claim to the Stand Your Ground statute. What you quoted is only the defendant's claim, not the finding of the court.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  3. #3
    VIP Member
    Array archer51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    21,841
    Dawkins has claimed throughout the proceedings that this statute applies to him and he should not have been prosecuted. The State responds that the statute does not apply to Dawkins. The State is correct. The statute twice explicitly states that, for a person to be justified in using deadly force, the person must not be "engaged in an unlawful activity". 21 O.S.Supp.2006, 1289.25(C)(3), (D). Dawkins had an illegally modified weapon - his sawed-off shotgun - and used it to shoot Sanford. At the time he used deadly force, he was engaged in an unlawful act, and he does not get the benefit of the statute.
    Without having access to trial records it is hard to say, but it appears he was charged because of the use of an illegal weapon. If he had used a handgun, or an unmodified shotgun, he would not have been charged.
    Freedom doesn't come free. It is bought and paid for by the lives and blood of our men and women in uniform.

    USAF Retired
    NRA Life Member

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,340
    If as reported ...

    Quote Originally Posted by From the court
    In a 5-0 opinion, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that Dawkins is not entitled to the use of the “Stand Your Ground” Defense, because, at the time of the incident, Dawkins was engaged in an unlawful activity, namely possession of an illegally modified weapon. (The sawed off shotgun).
    "Tangled web," indeed. I'd hardly equate that with an act/activity. It was something sitting in the closet, or wherever. It's not as though he was patrolling/guarding a pot plantation. It was his home defensive weapon. It hardly disallows his right to defend against unjustifiable violent attack upon his person.

    Fine, charge him with having an untaxed firearm. But let the citizen defend himself to the fullest extent afforded him by virtue of being a citizen.
    Last edited by ccw9mm; November 13th, 2012 at 02:52 PM. Reason: clarification (bolding)
    atctimmy and msgt/ret like this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  5. #5
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,856
    It was his "illegal" home defense weapon that disqualified him more than anything.

    Had he used a legally maunfactured firearm, perhaps the court might have taken a different view, agreeing that even though a convicted felon, his still maintains a right to self defense. Convicted felon+illegal sawed-off shotgun does not = right. Seems as though he didn't learn his lesson well.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  6. #6
    VIP Member
    Array archer51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    21,841
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    If as reported ...



    "Tangled web," indeed. I'd hardly equate that with an act/activity. It was something sitting in the closet, or wherever. It's not as though he was patrolling/guarding a pot plantation. It was his home defensive weapon. It hardly disallows his right to defend against unjustifiable violent attack upon his person.Fine, charge him with having an untaxed firearm. But let the citizen defend himself to the fullest extent afforded him by virtue of being a citizen.
    It wasn't his house, and when he retrieved the gun from his car, and entered the house, he shot the person as soon as they turned toward him. At the time of the shooting he had not been attacked nor had the person he shot made a move toward him.


    They returned to the girls' house. Bradley sat on the couch and Dawkins went outside. Sanford drove up and immediately walked in the house uninvited. Dawkins got his sawed-off shotgun from his car. Sanford spoke to Shonna briefly but was distracted when he saw Bradley on the couch. Asking if Bradley wanted to start something, Sanford began to hit Bradley. Summer and Shonna yelled at Sanford to stop. As Sanford attacked Bradley, Dawkins stepped inside the front door. Sanford turned to look at him. Dawkins raised the gun and shot Sanford once in the chest. Dawkins admitted shooting Sanford but told police it was an accident
    Considering he claims self defense and after reading the last sentence, I have to ask. What is accidental self defense?
    Freedom doesn't come free. It is bought and paid for by the lives and blood of our men and women in uniform.

    USAF Retired
    NRA Life Member

  7. #7
    Distinguished Member Array kapnketel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Northern Kentucky
    Posts
    1,709
    How can he claim on one hand he acted in self defense and in the next breath say he accidentally shot him? Me for one is glad he is off the streets again.
    I'd rather be lucky than good any day

    There's nothing that will change someone's moral outlook quicker than cash in large sums.

    Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •