Such acts are not vulnerable to guilt as one was forced to repel an attack. As a means of defending oneself, Gardner and Anderson (2011) note, the accused must prove pending danger, which he/she was unable to resist. Additionally, the accused must prove the ability to look for alternative ways of avoiding the act, unsuccessfully. Gardner and Anderson (2011) argue self-defense is relevant in defending oneself, another person and in the defense of property. For instance, if rapists stormed into a house and tried to rape the wife of an individual, the man could defend the wife by shooting them.
Joseph Weekley, charged with involuntary manslaughter, said he didn't immediately realize that he had shot Aiyana Stanley-Jones during the 2010 house raid. He said he unintentionally pulled the trigger when the victim's grandmother knocked his submachine gun. Weekley said he believed the shot came from someone else in the house. He said he didn't even feel recoil in the weapon.
A man open fired at a movie theatre killing twelve and injuring fifty-eight. Situations like this should make people want to have stricter laws on gun control. Also they would have never happended there were stricter gun control laws. Holmes the shooter in this shooting had legally purchased an AR-15 rifle and a 12-gague gun and 6,000 rounds of ammunition online. I understand that the second amendment states that we have the right to bear arms but that doesn’t mean you need to have an AR-15 rifle and 6,000 rounds of ammunition to protect yourself.
Criminals are not known for following the rules so all law abiding citizens have the right to defend themselves by any means needed. You could be going through a tough area of town and having that self defense on you makes you feel a bit more comfortable and safer, protecting oneself and family is a personal duty and the government should not impede the ability of responsible adults to defend themselves from potential harm. You got to take the good with the bad
Reason for the Exclusionary Rule The exclusionary rule was created to protect innocent people from being harassed from law enforcement. The exclusionary rule is judge made law and has been around since the beginning of the 1900’s. The Supreme Court ruled that illegal searches conducted by law enforcement officials should not be allowed in court because it was a breach of a person’s fourth amendment. This rule prevents officers from misconduct. Cost and Benefits When determining the cost/benefit analysis to the exclusionary rule, one must take into consideration the outcome.
In a country full of violent crime, the United States continues to embody the gun as integral to it's protection and culture. While the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution grants the people the right to bear arms, the people must on the contrary protect themselves from those who bear them. In my view, guns give people a false sense of security and are more of a nuisance than a benefit. Guns are a threat to the peace and safety of society. Therefore, since it is unlikely that all guns will disappear in the United States, legislation must be enacted to ban and cease the further manufacture of the types of firearms involved in more violent crime than all others; handguns and assault-weapons.
Sue Tas hid for five days then went back and told one of the neighbors what he had seen. This explanation causes more questions than answers, why would Robinson let two Aborigines into his house with no questions asked, what did Tom have to gain from killing him, was Sue Tas really an innocent bystander. He claims Tom had his gun with him but then it was revealed that Robinson's gun was missing from his mantle so where did it go? In a newspaper article during the trial it was stated that Sue Tas was threatened with death if he ever returned home and that seems fishy if he was telling the truth. There are a bunch of things that could have gone wrong with this testimony, someone could have paid the interpreter or something could have gotten lost in translation.
Jamarco Edwards April 25, 2012 Proposal Essay on the “Castle Doctrine” What is castle doctrine? Castle doctrine is the law that provides a person to the right to use deadly force to protect his property on his or her ground instead of retreating, against an intruder who wants to carry out armed robbery or to inflict serious physical harm upon the person in the property. This legal rule is very interesting as it gives a person exclusive dominion and control over what goes inside his house except of felony, murder, drug trafficking, domestic abuse, and rape. This law allows a person in the house to defend himself and his household against anyone who intends to commit crimes or to commit burglary. Under this rule, a man’s home is his castle and he has the right to defend it against any intruders.
It is to be noted that, there is no necessity in a false imprisonment case to prove that a person used physical violence or laid hands on another person. It is sufficient to show that at any time or place the person in any manner deprived another person of his/her liberty without sufficient legal authority. False arrest is sometimes used interchangeably with false imprisonment. False arrest is the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another consisting of detention without sufficient legal authority. In order to establish a false arrest claim, the person detained must prove that the arrest is unlawful and such unlawful arrest resulted in injury.
The regime in control must shield the right to life, liberty and property. When Hospers states, “libertarians support all such legislation as will protect human beings against the use of force by others, for example, laws against killing, attempted killing, maiming, beating, and All kinds of physical violence”, he shows this to be true (Velasquez 677). Basically, the government should be the force acting against negative crime committed from one person to another. If the peace is kept mutual between the citizens in the society, the government should not be active at all. The property of a citizen should be kept in safety, Hospers says, “libertarians support legislation that protects the property rights of individuals against confiscation, nationalization, eminent domain, robbery, trespass, fraud and misinterpretation, patent and copyright, libel and slander” (Velasquez 677).