“Would we even be here if Julian Acox was white?”

February 15, 2016 7:54 PM

In a 7-Eleven in Reno on Feb. 2, 2013, around 2:30 am, Julian Acox had a confrontation with the members of a motorcycle club. A few minutes later, as Acox was fleeing in his car, he fired his gun, killing one of the club members, Merlin Herrald.
Self-defense, or first-degree murder? A stand your ground state, and a black defendant. Race, self-defense and making of a murder charge
posted by ShooBoo (33 comments total)

Great article. Thanks for posting it. As I read it, I could feel my heart beating harder and harder.
posted by 4ster at 8:47 PM on February 15, 2016 [2 favorites]

Yeah, thank you for posting this.
posted by clockzero at 9:10 PM on February 15, 2016

This was very interesting. While I'm obviously glad the young man received not guilty verdicts, I wonder if that outcome isn't going to reinforce the idea among some white people reading this that racism IS over, or maybe that the system works... because sure, the detective was appalling, and the prosecutor seemed racist (or at least, willing to use perceived racist bias to his/her advantage), but at least the jury found its way to the right outcome.
posted by axiom at 9:16 PM on February 15, 2016

A white defendant, who turned himself in, would have been free on bail or P.R. bond, instead of locked up while awaiting trial.
posted by yesster at 9:24 PM on February 15, 2016 [15 favorites]

If anyone is hesitating on clicking the link because it's in Salon, please be aware, the author is the defendants attorney. So the quality of the article is significantly higher than Salon normally is. It saddens me greatly to write that, because I remember when Salon was an up-and-coming publication that had a diversity of views and consistently great writing.
posted by el io at 9:41 PM on February 15, 2016 [17 favorites]

As a non-American, this boggles my mind:

Julian, from the outset, knew that what he did was not criminal, was not even immoral—that’s why he’d returned to Reno and turned himself in.

He is already 90' away from his attacker, in a running car that is pointed away from the group. He escalated the altercation from shoving into brandishing a weapon himself. And then he opens fire at them indiscriminately. Yup, completely moral.
posted by brokkr at 1:37 AM on February 16, 2016 [10 favorites]

The real lesson here is, don't be a dick.
posted by mikelieman at 1:44 AM on February 16, 2016

Ah. Not guilty. Good, in terms of treating everyone the same, black or white, under the crazy US gun laws. Convict them all or free them all.

BUT I'm the opposite of a gun person -- as a rule I don't like gun people, especially the kind who carry -- precisely because of shit like this. Mild-mannered me, if I had been in the defendant's spot, with an overgrown drunk and high white motorcycle gang idiot and his idiot white motorcycle gang pal intentionally terrifying black me and my black friends, and then a screaming friend of a friend in my car continuing to freak me out about how our lives were in imminent danger, and there's a godfuckingdamned gun in my hand, I might also have shot this Bullet. (The dead guy was known as 'Bullet' according to his obituary.) And though it looks as if I'd have been innocent in the eyes of the law, I'd have shot a man in Reno just... for what? Sometimes you should just keep driving.
posted by pracowity at 2:04 AM on February 16, 2016 [4 favorites]

intentionally terrifying black me and my black friends

White friends. White women, black man. I suspect that was a major component of the problem the bikers had with them, and the reason why all three of them were terrified.

On a tactical level, being chased at night by a heavier, faster vehicle crewed by armed hostiles really sucks. You'll wish you'd given them a distraction as you were leaving.
posted by Mr. Yuck at 3:08 AM on February 16, 2016 [5 favorites]

Thank you for posting this, it's really well written. It does such a great job at describing the events and ramping up the tension. I was wringing my hands by the end.

My favourite line:

“Something happens to people in law enforcement,” Comey says. “Many of us develop different flavors of cynicism that we work hard to resist because they can be lazy mental shortcuts.”

Wow. Such a great line; not just limited to law enforcement. The older I get the more I realize this.
posted by Dimes at 3:15 AM on February 16, 2016 [8 favorites]

Pracowity and Mr. Yuck:

Is there anything in the article about the race of Herrald or Lundquist? It does say that their club is not affiliated with the national Ruff Ryders, but all the same--Ruff Ryders is generally a black and Hispanic club, and the pictures online of Herrald appear to be of a Hispanic man (I am not able to find much at all online about either Herrald or Lundquist). Of course, this doesn't change anything, really, because what mattered in the investigation and prosecution was Alcox's race, but it does seem somewhat important. 'Biker' does not automatically mean white guy or white supremacist.
posted by still bill at 4:00 AM on February 16, 2016 [3 favorites]

I guessed from his obituary picture, which looked white to me, but you could be right with Hispanic. Not black, though.

And the other guy is definitely white according to what I've seen online.
posted by pracowity at 5:02 AM on February 16, 2016

He is already 90' away from his attacker, in a running car that is pointed away from the group. He escalated the altercation from shoving into brandishing a weapon himself. And then he opens fire at them indiscriminately. Yup, completely moral.

Come on, at least pretend to be representing the events fairly:

He's 90' away from a group of guys who've been following him, have pinned him against a car and threatened him. When he got his gun out, they didn't back down, and told him that they have guns too. After leaving the encounter, his friend sees one of them reach behind his back and screams "they're going to shoot" and ducks. At this point he fires two shots from his car, which both hit his target.

I honestly don't know if that's a moral way to act, but I think it's understandable, and more importantly, it's legal. Your may as well just call it a "chicken-shit drive by" if you want to remove all the nuance from the defendants side of the story.
posted by Ned G at 5:09 AM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]

(for the record, I'm a non-American gun hater too, but this story makes way more sense to me than just about any other fact about guns in America)
posted by Ned G at 5:12 AM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]

There are quite a number of black defendants who have been acquited or had charges dropped under 'stand your ground' laws in Florida (see e.g. http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_23). In this case it seems to me that you don't need race to explain the charge -- the guy was in a moving car exiting the scene, was not being pursued, and leaned out of his car to shoot backwards at a distant target based on some perception that they might possibly use a gun. If a cop had done that everyone here would be saying it should be an open and shut murder charge.
posted by zipadee at 5:16 AM on February 16, 2016 [11 favorites]

He's 90' away from a group of guys who've been following him, have pinned him against a car and threatened him. When he got his gun out, they didn't back down, and told him that they have guns too. After leaving the encounter, his friend sees one of them reach behind his back and screams "they're going to shoot" and ducks. At this point he fires two shots from his car, which both hit his target.

I perceive this same fact pattern quite differently. Again, if a cop was driving away from a scene and leaned out to fire a shot based on his partner's guess that someone was going to shoot at him -- without even seeing a gun! -- everyone here would be baying for his blood.

I always thought that the point of stand your ground was that someone was preventing you from leaving the scene. I really don't want to live in a country where people can do random drive-bys based on a guess that someone on the street 30 yards away is going to maybe shoot at them. He's very lucky he didn't hit a random bystander.
posted by zipadee at 5:22 AM on February 16, 2016 [6 favorites]

I honestly don't know if that's a moral way to act, but I think it's understandable, and more importantly, it's legal.

not in all jurisdictions - in a state that didn't have a stand your ground law, this might be a lot more difficult case to defend
posted by pyramid termite at 5:22 AM on February 16, 2016

If a cop had done that everyone here would be saying it should be an open and shut murder charge.

I don't agree that this was necessarily justified self defense, but that's not anywhere near the same thing. Police are specially trained and are held to a higher standard because of the great amount of power we give them.

A scared man against a biker gang is not a cop.
posted by mayonnaises at 5:35 AM on February 16, 2016 [13 favorites]

someone was preventing you from leaving the scene.

What it means is that you don't have to try to leave the scene even if you can do so safely.

If someone is preventing you from leaving, then you can't flee safely, and you could defend yourself in any jurisdiction, not just those with SYG provisions.
posted by jpe at 5:49 AM on February 16, 2016 [3 favorites]

Ned G: "He's 90' away from a group of guys who've been following him, have pinned him against a car and threatened him. When he got his gun out, they didn't back down, and told him that they have guns too."

To be clear, the threats amounted - according to the guy's own defense! - to asking if Julian had a problem with him. He said something about “following his girl.” Then, Acox draws a gun. Herrald said, “We got guns too,” then told Acox to “fight like a man.” Lastly, it's “get your bitch ass out of here.”

I also note that the defender not-so-subtly implies that the bikers probably had guns because they didn't show Acox their hands when he threatened them with his weapon, and because they had "criminal convictions incentivizing them to get rid of any firearms before the police arrived". Which is kind of ironic when he's spending all this time talking about how unfair prejudices affected his client.

Herrald was clearly no angel and the incident that led to his death was instigated by himself, but Acox also made multiple decisions that ended up escalating the situation. How this can be glibly passed off as "not even immoral" is beyond me.
posted by brokkr at 6:00 AM on February 16, 2016 [7 favorites]

One of the legal aspects that confuses me is the impact on Acox's self-defense claim is that the man who he killed (Herrald) was not the guy who Acox believed was hiding a weapon behind his back (Lundquist). If he had hit, for example, a customer exiting the store who wasn't part of the prior confrontation, would his self-defense claim still apply? And, to change the facts a little, what if it were determined that Lundquist did have a gun; if Acox had fired at him from a car 90' away and hit an innocent bystander, would he likely be charged with negligent homicide or something similar?

One thing that strikes me about the lawyer's account is that if the prosecution had offered a plea to a charge that more closely fit the facts of the incident--say some degree of manslaughter, which Urza describes as a probationable offense--he would probably have strongly counseled Acox to take the deal. So you don't have to believe Acox behavior was moral, or even completely legal, to agree with the jury that he should be acquitted of the crime he was charged with.
posted by layceepee at 6:02 AM on February 16, 2016 [6 favorites]

Taking a shot from a departing car 90 feet away from a stationary target is the opposite of stand your ground and not much like self defence. On the other hand, the fact he had so little chance of hitting the target in that situation makes 1st degree murder a bit of a stretch too. Sounds a lot like manslaughter.

On preview - what lacypee said
posted by Carbolic at 6:08 AM on February 16, 2016 [2 favorites]

'Biker' does not automatically mean white guy or white supremacist.

I concur.

Let me rephrase: Guy thinks you are looking at him or "his" person in a way that only he defines as wrong. You get kind of lost in the non-logic of how staring while thinking about your own problems could get somebody so angry and it occurs to you that where this usually happens is in prison. Red flag right there. Prepare for the bull. Not the one who shits, the one with horns or big fists or a gun.

the fact he had so little chance of hitting the target in that situation makes 1st degree murder a bit of a stretch too.

Don't take the detectives word on that.
posted by Mr. Yuck at 6:23 AM on February 16, 2016

I like to read the comments before the FA. That way the details come out piecemeal and in interesting ways, and your assumptions are challenged.

For example, I assumed the bikers were also black. And that the shooter was alone.

The shooting while conceding his ground did rather stand out. Given that we are taking a stand your ground state.

the fact he had so little chance of hitting the target in that situation makes 1st degree murder a bit of a stretch too.

Pretty sure it's intention rather than chance of success that's the crucial point here. On the other hand, I don't know how much time you have to meditate on your planned murder for it to become pre-meditated.
posted by IndigoJones at 6:33 AM on February 16, 2016

If he had hit, for example, a customer exiting the store who wasn't part of the prior confrontation, would his self-defense claim still apply?

I don't know about other states, but I just took the gun safety class required by the State of Tennessee to get a conceal carry permit, and they stressed that you are responsible for every bullet you fire. This exact scenario (legit self-defense under our SYG laws, but you hit a bystander) was raised, and our instructor said we'd be liable for that - that you were acting in self-defense would go to motive, but you'd still have the potential for jail time (our instructor wasn't specific about the charge but I'm guessing manslaughter) and definitely you'd have financial liability.
posted by joannemerriam at 6:37 AM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]

He's very lucky he didn't hit a random bystander.

That's what drives me nuts about this stuff. Why does your right to self defense mean I have to worry about your stray bullets? There should be much stricter training requirements at the very least. You have a right to guns, I have a right to life.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:39 AM on February 16, 2016 [5 favorites]

Let me rephrase: Guy thinks you are looking at him or "his" person in a way that only he defines as wrong. You get kind of lost in the non-logic of how staring while thinking about your own problems could get somebody so angry and it occurs to you that where this usually happens is in prison.

Or New York.

That's one of the first rules you learn for riding the subway.
posted by layceepee at 6:45 AM on February 16, 2016

Quoting myself: Don't take the detectives word on that.

People have been on horses or in cars, firing arrows or bullets for a long time.
posted by Mr. Yuck at 6:57 AM on February 16, 2016

One thing that strikes me about the lawyer's account is that if the prosecution had offered a plea to a charge that more closely fit the facts of the incident--say some degree of manslaughter, which Urza describes as a probationable offense--he would probably have strongly counseled Acox to take the deal.

One consequence of SYG laws is that prosecutors in states which have them are finding it much more difficult to prosecute cases like this, because the possibility of that defense coming up makes it much harder to predict what charges may stick. Some prosecutors are declining to file any charges in cases like this one precisely because they don't feel it's a worthwhile gamble of time and resources with the outcome so uncertain.
posted by clockzero at 7:04 AM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]

the fact he had so little chance of hitting the target in that situation makes 1st degree murder a bit of a stretch too.

Don't take the detectives word on that.

I've done a fair amount of shooting, and I'd give myself extremely bad odds on connecting accurately in that situation, and as others noted, I'd be worried that I'd be endangering bystanders. It was a bad situation and I can't say for certain what I would have done in his place, but I think he made a bad call. The police and prosecutors made worse ones the way they handled the case.
posted by Candleman at 7:56 AM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]

I have three sons; one is African American, the other two are white. I know they have been treated differently by law enforcement officers.
posted by mareli at 9:57 AM on February 16, 2016

that's not anywhere near the same thing. Police are specially trained and are held to a higher standard because of the great amount of power we give them. A scared man against a biker gang is not a cop.

Everyone who carries a gun legally and presumes to use it legally should have a higher standard applied. We are giving a great deal of power to people by letting them carry guns and use them in 'self-defense'. I was scared/confused shouldn't justify misuse of lethal force.

Also, he was not really 'against' a biker gang at the time, he was driving away from one. Actively involved in a melee could create some justifiable fear and confusion -- rightly or wrongly (usually wrongly IMO) we give police the same benefit of a doubt when actively fighting. But driving away is different.
posted by zipadee at 12:19 PM on February 16, 2016 [3 favorites]

If anybody should be in jail, it's the moron who stopped at a stop sign while fleeing 20 yards away from an armed confrontation with a group of drunken bikers. If you get pulled over for running it, a cop is there and you are safe. If you run it and get away, you are safe. Roll the damn stopsign!
posted by Megafly at 3:00 PM on February 16, 2016 [1 favorite]