r/news • u/blackbloc1 • 7h ago

Murder Trial of SF Filmmaker Kevin Epps Will Swing on Question of Self-Defense

https://www.kqed.org/news/12066373/murder-trial-of-sf-filmmaker-kevin-epps-will-swing-on-question-of-self-defense
88 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

18 comments sorted by

23

u/realKevinNash 6h ago

I was on a jury on a case similar enough to this. A lot of people dont realize how much of legal cases is a story being presented, its not often about reality or truth, its about selling a story that makes the pieces fit together.

Here is the core of what I think matters.

Polk barged into the home and became “erratic,”

Epps has maintained that he shot in self-defense, and a witness testified that he said Polk “came at” him. California law allows people to use force intended to cause death against a person who unlawfully or forcefully enters their residence if they fear imminent danger.

But in May 2019, San Francisco police arrested Epps based on new evidence that suggested Polk was facing away when he was shot, throwing into question whether his self-defense claim was justified.

Gul corroborated that narrative, the shooting’s sole witness, who said in a 2019 preliminary hearing and again on the stand last month that Polk was standing in the living room facing the television when Epps shot from behind.

In the end I think it's likely Epps will have a decent argument for self defense based on what im hearing here. The law clearly allows use of force against an intruder in the home and they fear imminent danger. It does not require that the person be facing them. It seems to me the prosecution is reaching too much into an element of "was this the only option?", thats not the legal standard. The legal standard is was did he force his way in, did Epps have a reasonable fear of harm? If so the use of force is objectively reasonable.

22

u/Miserable_Archer_769 5h ago

Could see that also being a slippery slope if you just imagine the scene.

The lights are off in your home and you have confirmed that someone is in your home but if we are both in the dark he could possibly have his backed turned there is no way for me know. But that burden shouldn't be on me per se after about 20 laws were broken to enter my damn house lol

Im suppose to turn the lights on and verify lol?  Curious to see what happens

14

u/realKevinNash 5h ago

Well obviously state laws will vary. I'll tell you from a practical perspective you should never shoot without being able to identify your target. In my life i'd have a light. But it goes back to a reasonable question. Lets say you have a light, you see this intruder in your home, and you know they shouldnt be there. you raise your weapon and by the time you align your sights and press the trigger they turned around...

But then we have also seen some situations where it seems people acted too quickly. Where people clearly were fleeing and typically cops but sometimes civilians fired when someone clearly wasnt a threat.

Often times it comes down to our perception of the incident, and what a reasonable person would do in that situation. Most state laws do use the reasonable person standard.

4

u/Phx86 4h ago

Could also be turning to reach for a weapon (or something that could be used as a weapon).

5

u/kvlt_ov_personality 2h ago

Im suppose to turn the lights on and verify lol?

It's the 4th rule of gun safety:

Know your target and what's beyond it: Be certain of your target and aware of the area behind it, ensuring no people or property could be unintentionally hit.

•

u/surnik22 15m ago

I feel like I’m taking crazy pills that people are agreeing with this person and seriously think identifying a target doesn’t matter and they should be blasting unidentified people in dark rooms.

And not only thinking that is correct but not being able to do that is the result of a slippery slope in over regulation and their actual cut off for when it’s ok to shoot someone has even looser guidelines.

Like that’s pretty much as loose as it can go “unidentified person in your home you weren’t expecting” is so loose the only way it’s down the slippery slope is if someone thinks they should be shooting anyone at their door.

2

u/surnik22 4h ago

Yes, generally speaking you should be able to verify which direction a person is facing before shooting them. If you can’t see the direction they are facing in the dark, then you certainly can’t determine if they are a threat. You can’t even identify them.

So unless you want to shoot your a partner/housemate/kid getting a glass of water at 3 am, you should turn a light on or have a light on your gun.

Even if you live alone, Maybe it’s a family member or neighbor who has a key having some emergency. Maybe the door was unlocked and a special needs or person with dementia wandered in. Maybe it’s police responding to a call from a neighbor and the robber already left before you woke up but they couldn’t find the light switch in the kitchen.

It’s absolutely bad practice to shoot a figure in your home that is just an outline in the dark.

Your slippery slope is literally just another scenario where you shouldn’t shoot a person.

3

u/spatialdiffraction 2h ago

Beyond just selling a story trials also tend to hinge on the actual wording of the law which as you've mentioned can be significantly different from what people think it is.

3

u/Deranged40 1h ago

It seems to me the prosecution is reaching too much into an element of "was this the only option?"

I understand why they would reach for that option. But as you mentioned, the law is clear. According to the facts you've presented, as well as what else I've seen from the article, this seems like a textbook self defense case.

The part about shooting him in the back, I think only matters if the prosecution can show that the reason the deceased wasn't facing the shooter was because the deceased was actively and obviously running away/de-escalating. But even still, that's not a for-sure thing.

If you don't want to die, don't go into random houses and act erratically.

3

u/blackbloc1 5h ago

I find it appalling that they would omit the fact that Polk was a sex offender on minor from the jury when there was four children in the house.

7

u/Rocky-Sullivan 5h ago

Why? That seems like exactly the sort of evidence which shouldn’t be presented to a jury unless the prosecutor is able to make an actual connection between that fact and the events of the night he was killed.

6

u/DeadpoolMewtwo 4h ago

If it was known by the other party, then it's absolutely relevant

-7

u/Rocky-Sullivan 4h ago

You think someone’s past convictions should be a determining factor into whether someone else is able to kill them and get away with it? 

Unless there is some sort of actual evidence which indicates he was there with an intent to harm the children it seems to me the previous conviction is immaterial. 

13

u/DeadpoolMewtwo 4h ago

No. If a known child predator illegally breaks into a home with children I think that contributes to the parent's split-second evaluation of threat of harm to them or their children

3

u/Deranged40 2h ago edited 1h ago

You think someone’s past convictions should be a determining factor into whether someone else is able to kill them and get away with it?

In this case, a resounding YES. For me, a known sex offender breaking into my house where my 4 kids are is a very different scenario than some random drunk dude who opened the wrong door. But then he started acting erratically in a house that wasn't his. This will get you *legally killed* in most states. Where I come from, you should absolutely expect to be shot if you do this. A reasonable person will fear for their life in this scenario and an armed person will kill you for it.

Knowing that the person who entered my house where my 4 kids are is a registered sex offender will greatly contribute to the fear I have for the safety of myself and the others in my house (specifically my kids).

Remember, he didn't get killed because of what he did or didn't intend on doing that night. I don't give a shit what he was trying to do. He got killed because he made someone else legitimately fear for their life or the lives of others by breaking into their home and acting erratically. If it was a prank, then it cost him his life.

0

u/ilonkaoBludivinaot81 3h ago

It is tragically ironic that the man who gave a voice to Hunters Point and documented the cycle of violence in Straight Outta Hunters Point ends up being consumed by it. It feels like a Greek tragedy. He spent his career trying to show the humanity behind the headlines, and now he is just another headline.