Political Pressure
Written by redstate41 on 2007-11-21 20:50:42
I am concerned at the political pressure that will likely be put on SCOTUS to delay their decision until after the election in November of 2008. My first sense is that the Court has sufficient vertebrae to take on the case, reformulated the stupid question proposed by D.C. in the their appeal and a life-time term to help reduce that same pressure. They have narrowly defined the question and have a good chance at settling at least that question. I would predict more litigation to clarify some of the less than "reasonable" restrictions being placed on firearms. To deny self-defense in ones' home is really really stupid on the part of D.C. Thank you Parker, Heller, et al. for standing up and the Court for taking up the case. |
Reasonable Force
Written by John B. Barrett on 2007-12-07 14:04:23
The idea that deadly force cannot be used to prevent property loss goes back to the English Common Law. Because the specifics are now a function of state law, they vary not only by state, but by era and by the philosophy of the individual prosecutor.
As a result, although I am an attorney, and knew I was within my rights, when I pulled a gun (no shots fired) on a car load of kids who tried to run me off the road and finally cornered me, I was prosecuted for aggravated assault. I was found not guilty. In other counties in Kansas, the kids would have been charged with aggravated assault for their use of the car, and I would not have been charged.
Kansas has now passed a "make my day" law, which provides that if you are legally present, even outside your house or vehicle, you have no duty to retreat, and are generally allowed to use deadly force against an aggressor. Other states require that you retreat, even from your home, rather than use deadly force, if you have an avenue of retreat.
Generally, the more “civilized” a state views itself, the more restrictions it places the use of deadly force.
If you go back to the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the restrictions were much less. Not only did some states provide for the use of deadly force in the defense of certain property, Texas and Arizona provided that if a man caught his wife in bed with another man, he was justified in killing both of them.
As we have become more “civilized,” society has generally elevated the value of criminals’s lives, and devalued property. As a result, deadly force can now only be justified legally to prevent the loss of life or great bodily harm.
Since the standard is whether a person reasonably believed the criminal posed a threat to life or limb, there is frequently a grey area which is left to the discretion of the prosecutor, and ultimately to the jury. |
