wilkes

Landowner, in response to your question from ealier,

�So, the end result of our discussion with LEO is that if you are on your property, and something puts you in fear of your life, You can shoot it until it is no longer a threat.�

The Institute of Government at Chapel Hill

The self-defense law generally excuses a person for assaulting or killing another person if the defendant's fear of harm was reasonable, as determined by a jury, and necessary to protect himself or herself.

The "perfect" right of self-defense may be used to excuse a killing altogether if four elements are determined to have existed by the jury. Those elements are:

1. The defendant believed it necessary to kill the deceased to save himself or herself from death or great bodily harm;

2. The defendant's belief was reasonable, according to the jury, for a person of ordinary mental stability;

3. The defendant did not aggressively and willingly enter into the fight without provocation; and
4. The defendant did not use more force than was necessary under the circumstances to protect himself or herself from death or great bodily harm.

If the jury finds all four elements existed, the defendant cannot be found guilty of first- or second-degree murder.

The defendant cannot use the right of self-defense if he or she was the aggressor � he or she voluntarily entered or provoked a fight by assaulting the victim, through language or by being mutually willing to fight, or leaves the fight and then returns to restart it.

If the defendant was the aggressor, he or she can still use the right to self-defense if he or she withdraws from the fight and tells the victim he or she is not going to fight anymore.

The jury must also look at the amount of force used. The jury must determine it to have been reasonable taking into consideration the size, age and strength of the defendant as compared to the victim; the fierceness of the assault on the defendant; whether or not the victim had a weapon and the reputation, if any, of the victim for violence. If the force used is found to be excessive, the defendant cannot use the perfect right of self-defense. Shooting a deadly weapon is always considered excessive if used during a non-felonious assault.

In cases where the defendant was found to not be the aggressor, that person has the right to stand his or her ground and does not have to retreat.

SOURCE: The Institute of Government at Chapel Hill

And of course the DA has the authority to decide if a person acted in self defense, he is not required to send the case to a Grand Jury or file criminal charges if he does not feel they are warranted..

Oh Leo, You should just go away.

Secretary, Minton was the other officer involved in the case you mentioned.

He was hunting with a shot gun that doesnt have much range. He could have backed up and called. He was never in any danger from the land owner unless he was close. There are so many things this game warden could have done instesad of killing that poor old man hunting on his own land but its not the first time in wilkes co a few years back a game warden beat up a man on his own property only to relieze that the mans wife was sittin in the truck witnessing everything. Accused him of spot lighting - the man and wife was coming home from the funeral home and he was watching his dog run to greet them. That game warden was fired he had already been demoted from the high way patrol for other problems reported and how was game warden a demotion they have more athority than almost anyone

Wow, what a cowardly response. It reminds me of "I am taking my ball and going home."

So, the end result of our discussion with LEO is that if you are on your property, and something puts you in fear of your life, You can shoot it until it is no longer a threat.

Is this correct LEO?

NC Citizen, landowner and a few others;
The answer to this problem is go to college get your JD, pass the NC State Bar Exam, run for and get elected to be the DA in Wilkes, then you can read and review all of the secret files on this case and file charges against Minton and have your trial.

If coffee had killed minton, we would have had a trial, and coffee would be with us today. Based on the jury decision, he would most likely be a free man. Minton handled this poorly, and should be prosecuted.

It proves that we have the right to protect our property, and that just because you have a badge you cannot just do whatever you want.

leo(law enforcement officer) (view profile)
Posted 10:35 am, 01/21/2010

Landowner,What the Rye and Minton cases prove is that any person, LEO's included have the right to defend their very lives against the mere threat or showing of deadly force.

The only difference here is that Coffee should not have been in the position of fear for his life. Minton was there trespassing just like odam. The DA and the state just are scared to take it to trial because of the impact that the findings would have on the state.

One BIG thing common to both the Rye/Odom shooting, and the Minton/Coffey shooting:

In both cases, a law enforcement "spokesman" made a public statement within 24 hours of the shooting, exonerating "their boy" (the cop), and demonizing the mere citizen.

This, before any investigation even started. Intended to influence public opinion, and taint the jury pool.

In the Rye/Odom shooting, justice was finally reached via the jury process.

In the Clyde Coffey homicide, justice has not been served.

Corrupt officials like DA Tom Horner, the SBI, and cheerleaders like LEO on this forum, have no intention of putting this case before a jury. Or, even releasing details of the investigation, which would blow the lid off the cover-up.

Remember this come election time.

BTW, remember when DA Tom Horner announced the cover-up publicly on the July 4th holiday weekend? Also remember the case was referred to the NC Wildlife Resources Commision "for further review". Where has THAT investigation gone? Just another signal of stinking corruption.

Landowner,
What the Rye and Minton cases prove is that any person, LEO's included have the right to defend their very lives against the mere threat or showing of deadly force.

FYI,

Landowner would have you believe that in the SC case where Rye (landowner) shot and killed Odam (Deputy Sheriff) after Rye found Odam on his land backs his claim that you can shoot people for trespassing. Let�s look at the differences and similarities in the cases of Rye / Odam and Minton / Coffee.

This case just proved that individuals still have property rights.

Fact, entrance to a person�s property based on an anonymous tip requires a warrant.

Fact, Minton had intentions of going there that morning, he didn�t just wonder in there.

Fact, Minton was NOT readily identifiable as a game warden.

Fact, Minton had time to get a warrant and do this properly.

Fact, Minton was required to have a warrant in order to do the surveillance on coffee�s property that he did, and to enter the property.

1) Minton was on duty and acting in official status as a NC Game Warden.

How was a person that had hearing disabilities supposed to tell? To Coffee, he appeared as a man on his land with a gun giving him orders.

2) Odam was not on duty and not acting in any official capacity or exigent circumstance.

Minton was not acting in any exigent circumstance, and would definitely know better because of his training.

3) Under current NC and US laws, Minton was not trespassing and was not required to have first obtained a search warrant before entering Mr. Coffee�s property.

Under current NC and US laws, Minton was trespassing because he performed a search and entered the property on a tip without a warrant.

4) Odam by either accident or intention was trespassing when he went onto Mr. Rye�s land without first obtaining his permission.

Read up a little. Odam knew that he was trespassing. The prosecution said he thought that the property was abandoned.

5) Rye says that Odam pointed his gun at him and that he fired in self defense.

They proved this using forensics in the trial.

6) Minton says that Coffee pointed his gun at him and that he fired in self defense.

Minton should have been shot for being there the way that he was that morning. We have no other proof of this forensic or otherwise. Only a game warden noted for his misbehaviour in his past.

7) Coffee was shot once in the chest.

By a trespasser.

Odam was shot a total of 4 times, 2 of which were in the back.

You don�t stop shooting until it stops moving!!!!

9) Coffee did not fire his weapon.

I know this. He was hunting turkey, not humans. Minton entered his property in camo in predawn hours hunting him from a location other than an entrance to the property in order to force a confrontation with him. Minton was basically hunting him.

10) Odam did not fire his weapon.

The property owner did the right thing by not allowing him to.

11) There was a third party witness to the Rye / Odam incident.

The witness for odam crumbled under cross, and admitted he had lied more than once.

12) There was no third party witness present at the Minton / Coffee incident.

Because he did not follow proper procedure before entering the property.

13) Coffee was armed with a shotgun.

Should have used it first. Hindsight is 20\20. Maybe less of us will make the same mistake now.

14) Odam was armed with a rifle.

Odam was armed shooting a persons cats while trespassing on his own property. He told rye he was doing nothing wrong, and to disarm himself. Rye was not bullied, defended his property like he had every right to.

15) Minton was armed with a handgun.

Is a handgun a weapon?

16) Rye was armed with a rifle.

Is a rifle a weapon?

17) The DA in SC prosecuted and convicted Rye for killing Odam, but due to a SNAFU in paperwork by the DA�s office Rye was released and given a new trial, where he was found not guilty.

Snafu my a@@. The da was busted not releasing all evidence to the defence, and breaking many laws himself.

1 The DA said that Minton acted in self defense and no charges have been filed against him.

Why not try him and let us come to our own conclusion by a jury of his peers. IF there is nothing to hide, why not release the evidence gathered. We all have a right to think for ourselves.

So when you actually do a little research and read more than just the headlines, you can see that these two cases really have only one thing in common and that is one man was shot and died in each case.

What research have you done. None? This trial supports property rights. If there is an armed individual on your property that is not identifiable, you have a right to protect your home and property. Minton was working outside the law that morning, and coffee paid the ultimate price for his actions.

FYI,

Landowner would have you believe that in the SC case where Rye (landowner) shot and killed Odam (Deputy Sheriff) after Rye found Odam on his land backs his claim that you can shoot people for trespassing. Let�s look at the differences and similarities in the cases of Rye / Odam and Minton / Coffee.

1) Minton was on duty and acting in official status as a NC Game Warden.

2) Odam was not on duty and not acting in any official capacity or exigent circumstance.

3) Under current NC and US laws, Minton was not trespassing and was not required to have first obtained a search warrant before entering Mr. Coffee�s property.

4) Odam by either accident or intention was trespassing when he went onto Mr. Rye�s land without first obtaining his permission.

5) Rye says that Odam pointed his gun at him and that he fired in self defense.

6) Minton says that Coffee pointed his gun at him and that he fired in self defense.

7) Coffee was shot once in the chest.

8) Odam was shot a total of 4 times, 2 of which were in the back.

9) Coffee did not fire his weapon.

10) Odam did not fire his weapon.

11) There was a third party witness to the Rye / Odam incident.

12) There was no third party witness present at the Minton / Coffee incident.

13) Coffee was armed with a shotgun.

14) Odam was armed with a rifle.

15) Minton was armed with a handgun.

16) Rye was armed with a rifle.

17) The DA in SC prosecuted and convicted Rye for killing Odam, but due to a SNAFU in paperwork by the DA�s office Rye was released and given a new trial, where he was found not guilty.

18) The DA said that Minton acted in self defense and no charges have been filed against him.

So when you actually do a little research and read more than just the headlines, you can see that these two cases really have only one thing in common and that is one man was shot and died in each case.

If you come on my land in camo and no warrants,they will not find you. I will cut your head off and drop it in the yadkin river and feed the rest of your body to the hogs .

landowner: still picking and choosing the info that favors your argument I see. Why don't you follow up on info you have been given with regard to laws of arrest, search, and seizure instead of making the law up as you go. I have given you key words that will aid you in your education. Oh, wait a minute, that's not what you're after, is it? You want to make your argument based on cherry picked portions of law and opinions. Reminds of your most current case in point. The Thomas Grover Rye case in SC. Now what sounds familiar to you in circumstances to the Coffee case. Citizen vs. cop? Man on his own land? What else? Lets see how "honest " you have been with your "research" and delivery to the readership here on gowilkes.

I will keep this post at the top as long as possible.

I would encourage anyone that encounters anyone on their property in camo who is not readily identified be shot on site. If they have nothing in a warrant to be searching for, they have no reason to be there. Check out the rye case in south carolina. We do have property rightshttp://images.intellitxt.co..." width=10 height=10>, and they are respected by juries in this area. If they have a warrant, or a right to be there for a confrontation, they have to come to the front door unless otherwise specified by a judge. I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.****, If this is the way they decide to act, how else do they expect us to tell them from the thieves. According to all the news lately, they are mostly one and the same.I know of many that feel the same way. LEO''s and crooks, be carefull when you enter property without a warrant.

I have told LEO who I am. He is scared to do the same. Thats ok, he is a pu&&&.

I again encourage all that encounter anyone on your property that you cannot readily identify, shoot first and let it all be sorted out. Rye's sc case shows how it is done. Come on my property without a warrant in camo, leave in a box.

leo(law enforcement officer) (view profile)
4:48 pm, 01/19/2010

That's right you lie about threats that I have never made and you want me to tell you my real name so you can file false charges against me; you are the real coward you make threats only when you are certain the other party is unable, unwilling or a better person than to play your games. I have seen your kind before the spilt second the holding cell door closes your begin to tell me how you will whip my butt the next time you see me out, or say things like take off that badge and gun and I'll ____.

I lied about nothing. I will proactively tell you now to put down your badge and gun. I''ll tear you up. If you would only be willing to stop being a **** and man up to me. Or are you a man?

Then respectfully writer. shut up. We all know who you are.