"Ask why gun rights advocates have not supported John McNeil," an NAACP brochure urges. "Demand a full investigation of why this case came to trial in the first place."
Their press release, "Self-Defense Leads to a Life Sentence," explains:
"John McNeil, a father who was defending his teenage son, himself, and his home, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison in November 2006 for killing Brian Epp, a white trespasser. The Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court found that Epp, an armed trespasser on McNeil’s property had already threatened McNeil’s son with a box cutter. When McNeil arrived home to protect his son, he told the trespasser to get off the McNeil property. Eyewitnesses saw the trespasser, with the box cutter still on his person, keep advancing toward McNeil. McNeil warned him again, and when the trespasser got within a few feet of McNeil, the homeowner fired a warning shot into the ground. The trespasser continued to advance in a threatening manner toward McNeil, ignoring McNeil’s command to back up. When the trespasser was within arm's distance where he could injure or kill McNeil with the box cutter, or grab McNeil's weapon, McNeil fired one shot, which was fatal."
If the facts are as stated, it would indeed appear to be a case of justifiable self-defense, and a human being's home should, indeed, be their castle. Race should be irrelevant.
If the facts are as stated.
From LexisNexis:
"McNeil contracted to buy an unfinished home from Epp Elevations, a small building company owned by Epp and his wife. On December 6, 2005, Epp went to McNeil's house to complete required work."
There was an argument with McNeil's son, who said he thought Epp was a trespasser and who claims Epp pulled a knife.
McNeil arrived and confronted Epp, and another "loud argument" ensued. Per witness testimony, Epp advanced on McNeil, who then shot him. But then there's this:
"Epp's hands were at his sides, and the eyewitness did not see him raise his hands or see any weapons in his hands.
"Later, an officer arrived at the scene and found Epp on the ground with a fatal gunshot wound to the head. McNeil informed the officer that Epp had pulled a knife on him and then McNeil shot him. The officer saw a knife clipped inside the right hand pocket of Epp's pants. A forensic investigator from the Cobb County Medical Examiner's Office also responded to the scene and noticed that the knife in Epp's pocket was folded."
So in answer to the NAACP's initial question, it would appear "why gun rights advocates have not supported John McNeil" might be because the case is not as cut and dried as they have presented it. The dead man had a legitimate reason to be on the property, he did not force his way into the dwelling, and the observed evidence of the folded, clipped knife means he was not brandishing it at the time he was shot.
Whether his advancing on Mr. McNeil constituted a legitimate reason to open fire would appear to be the key question. Knife or not, if someone who has been arguing angrily with you is advancing toward you and does not stop when commanded, that seems a pretty compelling justification for some kind of intervention, and it's not like there was a lot of time to decide. Still, saying in advance he was going to "whip his ass" and then telling "police...that he had shot Epp because Epp had 'pulled a knife on him' during the confrontation" didn't help McNeil's case.
But yes, even though there already has been "a full investigation" I'd still like to learn more, including relevant background information on both men.
The thing is, in spite of all the hostile noise, I'm just not seeing why this is a race issue. Why does it matter what color either man was?
And the other thing is, it's interesting how the NAACP comes out in favor of armed defense when there is a race issue to exploit. Otherwise, there's been no group more hostile to the right to keep and bear arms, from their lawsuit against gun manufacturers to fighting recognition of the individual right to keep and bear arms in the Heller case, arguing:
"A Radical Departure from This Court’s Second Amendment Jurisprudence Is Not Warranted"
and
"The Second Amendment Does not Protect an Individual Right to “Keep and Bear Arms” for Purely Private Purposes"
It's past time for the NAACP to come out strongly in favor of the right to self-defense, including championing the free choice to keep and bear arms as a human right, belonging to everyone. Maybe if they would, they'd find gun rights advocates are a lot more receptive to seeing justice for all than they give us credit for.
Also see:
-
"Armed civil rights leader Hicks dead at 81"
-
"Professor thanks 'four black men and a gun'"
-
"Black man with a gun: interview with Kenn Blanchard"
-
"JPFO's 'No Guns for Negroes' exposes racism of 'gun control'"
- "An open letter that never closed"
-
"Black police group endorses same anti-gun edicts imposed by slave owners"
Comments
Well said, DC!
Dear Mr. Codrea. Examiner.com has a new format for your page that no longer links to all the other Gun Rights Examiners. I have been following them and you from day one here on examiner.com; From when you where the Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner. I would first read yours, then go down the list opening each examiner in turn. As I only favorited you I am not now able to read the others. Your assistance would be very much appreciated. Thanks in advance. I realize comments scections are normaly reserved for things and discusions relating to the topic at hand; But I could find no other way to contact you. Very Respectully, Jason M. Rogers.
If you click on the "Gun Rights Examiner" link up by my photo it has my bio and edress: dcodreaAThotmailDOTcom
Yes, I'm aware the link lists many of us have spent much time compiling have been lost in the site redesign, and the system will not yet let me update the "Preferred Links". I would typically include a link box under my column but the new "improved" site redesign also will not allow me to copy and paste it with coded links at this time, and it's just too much work to go in and repeat that every day manually. So the best thing to do until they get things worked out is visit my blog The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance at: http://waronguns.blogspot.com/ and scroll down the left sidebar where you will find my fellow GREs and some other Liberty-oriented Examiners.
Sorry, but it's the best i can offer at this time.
Now on to comments about NAACP and guns, please...
The NAACP and other Black civil rights groups were very strong supporters of the right to arms up into the 1930s when they started shifting their stance from individual rights and liberty to the blatantly racist, protectionist stance they currently espouse. It is shameful that groups calling themselves defenders of civil rights would oppose the right to defend oneself and ones family with firearms. That's about the only thing the Black Panther party for Self Defense got right when they formed back in 1966.
There's a relevant section just before the excerpt you included:
"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." [*4] Epp increased his speed toward McNeil and McNeil raised his gun and fired at Epp's head. Epp's hands were at his sides, and the eyewitness did not see him raise his hands or see any weapons in his hands."
So the dead guy charged even after a warning shot was fired. The whole thing sounds like a case where everyone involved suffered from testosterone poisoning, and for Epp it turned out to be fatal.
The lesson here is that when dealing with the cops the only thing you should ever say is "I'm going to remain silent, I want a lawyer." Things certainly would have gone better for McNeil if he'd kept his mouth shut.
To answer the question posed by the NAACP: I haven't supported John McNeil because I never even heard of him before this article. Whoever wrote that brochure needs to do some research. If they'd spent any time reading gun rights boards, they'd know that: a) a rather large percentage of the people who frequent them won't support a black guy who shot a white guy (unless the shooter is a cop), and b) another large percentage don't care at all about anything but the specific circumstances of the shooting.
Interesting contrast in stories... and it's hard to accuse someone of trespassing when you've contracted them to be doing work on the property.
Many years ago it was common to briefly flash a picture in front of a group of people and then ask them to write a short description of what they saw. The picture was of two men, one white and one black, struggling for posession of a knife. The results were almost always the same. Black witnesses tended to say they saw the knife in the hand of the white man. White witnesses tended to see the knife in the hand of the black man. When shown the picture a second time, with the knife obviously in the hand of the white man, white witnesses often refused to accept that they were looking at the same picture.
The point was that eye witness testimony can be, contrary to popular belief, some of the most unreliable evidence. Because people see with their brains, not with their eyes, and the brain tends to see what it expects to see. Only a few people saw the McNeil/Epp incident, and one of them is dead. I would bet there is considerable divergence in the descriptions of events given to police by the survivors and in such cases the benefit of the doubt is usually given to the man who was defending himself on his own property.
And that is one reason why this case needs to be looked at very closely.
David, great article! I couldn't agree more. If the NAACP was a legitimate organization, they would support the individual civil right to carry a firearm and use self-defense, but of course we see that is not their mission.
I think it may have been Ayn Rand who pointed out that the individual is the world's smallest minority. If you don't support individual rights, you can't say you support minority rights.
Interesting to contrast NAACP's stance with that of CORE where the National Chairman, Roy Innis, is also an NRA director.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!