The Case Of O'sullivan V.S. Mr. Crow

811 Words4 Pages
On the case of O’Sullivan vs. Mr. Crow I hear by find the defendant guilty of taking property and for murder. He has taken the life of an innocent man who had a family. He has put the blame on god. We all know that people have the freedom of speech and religion according to the 1st amendment of the Bill of Rights, but he has seriously taken that to the extreme. Mr.O’Sullivan doesn’t have the right to take Mr. Crow’s home and rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from the Declaration of Independence. He is guilty of taking property that wasn’t his by force which is breaking the second amendment of the Bill of Rights because it clearly states, “government can’t take property without cause”. So therefore, he definitely isn’t supposed to take it without going through a process. He has handled this solution all wrong, for the punishment, Mr. O’Sullivan will be sentenced for a few years of prison and taking classes to help him go through what he did wrong and what he could have done to avoid this situation. This punishment was chosen because according to the 8th amendment of the bill of rights, “all punishment must be reasonable”. So therefore, we have decided for this to be the reasonable punishment for Mr. O’ Sullivan. If he would have been politer and asked them for some property maybe this could have been avoided. However, the crow family was told that they could live in the tool shed and garden the rocky back strip of the yard for food. However, that isn’t necessarily right considering the fact that it was their property to begin with and that it was taken away from them without any necessary reason. Secondly, he will be receiving his punishment for shooting Mr. Crow. According to the Declaration of Independence it clearly states. “People have god given rights because we are alive”. Since Mr. O’Sullivan shot Mr. Crow he has

More about The Case Of O'sullivan V.S. Mr. Crow

Open Document