Eric Parker’s Trial – Stand Your Ground is Legal in Nevada by Stacy B. August 5, 2017

Many people take their right to defend themselves very seriously in America.
Veterans that have been in combat during their time in service continue to practice self defense tactics they were taught in the military and often times find it important to practice firing their weapons at a local gun range on a regular basis.
Women and men feel safer if they know they can defend themselves against a threat. They may take self-defense classes or learn how to fire a weapon just in case they may need to defend themselves or their children some day.
Store owners install cameras and recording equipment in their businesses to capture daily happenings in the store. Some owners keep a firearm on the premises to protect themselves just in case they are robbed. The captured images and video can be used later in court to verify what happened during a robbery gone wrong and may help convict the thief of their crime. The recordings are also helpful to recoup their loses if they have to file an insurance claim. But the firearm may be their only hope of getting out the situation alive while still keeping their property.
Homeowners and renters may install security devises, have a dog or two, and own firearms, to protect themselves during a break-in and to protect their property.
Preparing yourself and arming yourself for such a situation does not mean you actually want the dangerous situation to happen, but according to federal prosecutors in Nevada and the Federal Judge presiding over the case, Judge Gloria Navarro, it means exactly that.
According to the court updates by Eric Parker’s wife, Andrea Parker, if you carry a firearm and attend a protest you are guilty of conspiring to threaten or intimidate federal workers, even if you never pointed a weapon at the employees or voiced threats to them, or had any plan to do so.
Because a federal employee saw you with a gun you are guilty of brandishing a firearm and intimidating federal employees. If you wore camouflage colored shirt or pants, or both, you are labeled a militia member and a terrorist and therefore a threat to federal employees.

It is worth noting at this point of the story that before people showed up at the protest armed, several protestors had been injured by federal employees. One female family member was body slammed to the ground. Another tasered several times while being rushed by a dog after ordered to do so. And when a family member attempted to take pictures of federal employees destroying water infrastructure and killing cattle they were court ordered to seize, the family member was thrown to the ground, his face ground into the gravel on the side of the road and arrested.

The events ended days later by the family and supporters being notified by the Clark County Sheriff that that federal employees were leaving.
The family and supporters arrived at the wash to retrieve the remaining cattle and were confronted by armed federal employees. Instead of leaving, the employees ignore the order and chose to take a defensive stance against the protestors.

Eric Parker traveling from Idaho arrived in Bunkerville, NV and parked on the bridge overlooking the wash where the confrontation was in progress. When exiting his vehicle he saw the dangerous situation the protestors were in and spotted government snipers.
He immediately took cover with others on the bridge and ‘scoped out’ the situation.

In the first of two trials, he testified that he knew the snipers were out of his range and the best he would be able to do for the families and supporters below was to give cover fire when they tried to run away if the federal employees began firing on them.
The judge ordered that only the image of Eric Parker on the bridge was admissible in court. The images of federal snipers, injured protestors, and armed federal employees dressed in camouflage and tactical gear refusing to leave and taking a defensive stance against the family and supporters in the wash, was not admissible.
The defense team is not allowed to argue self-defense in front of the jury. They are not allowed to say that the U.S. Constitution protects their right to be armed and to protest. They are not allowed to say that Eric Parker feared for the safety of those down in the wash because the jury may agree and acquit him of the charges.
Judge Navarro believes this would be equivalent to jury nullification (acquittal), so any evidence that may lead the jury to that conclusion is inadmissible.
As a result, when Eric was tried the first time, the jury was hung and the judge called a mistrial. The prosecution chose to prosecute him again and spectators in the second trial are reporting that this too will probably end in a hung jury.
Once again, the judge is forbidding the defendant to speak of self-defense and of his rights to carry and use a firearm in self-defense or the defense of others.
Self-defense is defined as the right to prevent suffering force or violence through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting force or violence.
While many may believe that Eric should have retreated back to his vehicle to leave the scene of the danger and let the others defend themselves - that is a matter of personal opinion.
If you saw a woman being harmed by a man in a gas station parking lot and wouldn’t interview to protect her from harm, I guess you would believe Eric should not have intervened too.
But, the State of Nevada has a Stand Your Ground Law that legislators passed in 2011 which clarified the right of citizens (that chose not to leave the scene of an imminent threat) to use deadly force in self-defense of their life without first retreating or backing down. The legislation was passed based on case law, in which judges continued to rule that a person did not need to attempt to leave before defending themselves.
I suspect that Judge Gloria Navarro is aware of the law and historical background of previous judges’ rulings and decided to not allow the defense to even mention the term self-defense in her courtroom.
However, In order for a jury to believe that Eric was conspiring to threaten and intimidate federal workers, all evidence of the federal employees’ actions and words have to be inadmissible in court. And so they are- leaving the jury with an incomplete picture of what really happened in Bunkerville, NV in April 2014 and the fact that case law and state law validate Eric Parker’s actions.