Next time they claim Stand Your Ground is a new thing…

…check out these two cases:

Beard v. United States – 158 U.S. 550 (1895)

The defendant was where he had the right to be, when the deceased advanced upon him in a threatening manner and with a deadly weapon, and if the accused did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm, he was not obliged to retreat nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon in such way and with such force as, under all the circumstances, he at the moment, honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, were necessary to save his own life or to protect himself from great bodily injury.

And within the decision, there is another case at state level (Erwin v. State, 29 Ohio St.) that serves as a example that Stand Your Ground is not something that came out of the twisted mind of Wayne LaPierre day before yesterday:

“A very brief examination of the American authorities makes it evident that the ancient doctrine as to the duty of a person assailed to retreat as far as he can before he is justified in repelling force by force has been greatly modified in this country, and has with us a much narrower application than formerly. Indeed, the tendency of the American mind seems to be very strongly against the enforcement of any rule which requires a person to flee when assailed, to avoid chastisement, or even to save human life, and that tendency is well illustrated by the recent decisions of our courts bearing on the general subject of the right of self-defense. The weight of modern authority, in our judgment, establishes the doctrine that when a person, being without fault and in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel force by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self-defense, his assailant is killed, he is justifiable”

And the next case:

Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921)

The law has grown, and even if historical mistakes have contributed to its growth it has tended in the direction of rules consistent with human nature. Many respectable writers agree that if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self defence. That has been the decision of this Court. Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.

I urge you to read both cases and to follow the other cases that are mentioned in both decisions, specially if you are Floridian. The Gun Control groups are after Stand Your Ground and we know they have no qualms about lying and deceiving to make it happen. We need to bombard Governor Scott’s Task Force with legal precedents and not just “feelings.”

We have the legal ammo, let’s use it.

4 Replies to “Next time they claim Stand Your Ground is a new thing…”

  1. Just keep it in the back of your mind that there is no amendment that binds the states from following federal precedent in this area. One COULD argue the 2A incorporates not just arms cases but also self-defense cases (and believe me, you will see this approach) but this may not fly.

    So then you rely on common-law, which these make clear are extensions of and not faithful to common-law, to evaluate the applicability of the case to the states. This becomes a much tougher proposition to get this through.

    You can read all about some good cases like this @
    http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/Self-Defense-Cases.htm




    0



    0

Comments are closed.