Self Defense Whitlee Jones

Garner, 1986). The suit stated that Garner’s constitutional rights had been violated, and this case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court (Tennessee v. Garner, 1986). The Supreme Court ruled that the Tennessee statute that authorized the use of deadly force against an unarmed feeling felon to prevent escape was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court recognized that when deadly force was used to effect an arrest it was considered a seizure and subject to the guidelines of the fourth amendment. The Supreme Court admitted the state had an interest in effecting an arrest, but the use of deadly force went beyond the reasonableness standard of the individuals right to life as he was unarmed (Tennessee v. Garner, 1986). The majority also confirmed that Hymon’s use of deadly force was unreasonable based on Garner’s physical size and age coupled with the fact he was not armed so, hence he posed no threat to the officer or others (Tennessee v. Garner, 1986). The majority also found the Memphis police department’s use of deadly force policy to be more restrictive than that of the statue and a growing trend of other police departments had implemented much more restrictive policies (Tennessee v. Garner, 1986). In lieu of the courts decision the state of Tennessee revised their statute to include language that mirrors the courts interpretation of this case (Tennessee v. Garner,

Most people would think that having a assault weapon will help protect their family. It will but it will cause even more problems because the person that killed the person breaking into you home that person will get in trouble because if he did not do anything first then it would not be self defense so that person will go to jail for murder.

Under federal law if a suspect poses a threat to a law enforcement officer or the public the officer has permission to use deadly force. The Supreme Court says there are two factors that are involved to use deadly force, dangerousness and necessity (Hall, 2004). An example of

Stand your Ground law states that a person may use deadly force in self-defense without the duty to retreat when faced with a reasonable perceived threat. When Stand your Ground laws were advocated in Florida and other states, their proponents marketed them as a reestablishment of a natural right, arguing “the duty to retreat has not always been a part of the common law”. The historical context may be misleading, allowing self-defense only when reasonably necessary, and a duty to retreat when attacked outside one’s home. The National Rifle Association seek to influence the Stand your Ground Law as a away for people to protect themselves. Though opponents who were against this law worried it would encourage the use of deadly force. For example, a 2004 case James Workman, a seventy-seven year old retiree who was sleeping in his RV, where an intruder busted into the trailer. James shot the intruder and had to wait months for the verdict. Prosecutors then decided the shots he

Under common law a private citizen acting alone may have a defense to use non-deadly force to make an arrest if the person reasonably believes such force in necessary to make an arrest

“After a few more glimpse, she picked up her pace and was soon running in earnest. Within second she disappeared into a cross street”(Staples, Brent 301) and “I often witness that “hunch posture” from women after dark on the warren-like streets of Brooklyn where I live. They seem to set their faces on neutral with their purse strung across their chests bandolier style, they forge ahead as though bracing themselves against being tackled” (Staples, Brent 302), both show the approaches people take to protect themselves from harm. They are trying to either protect themselves from a possible attack or trying to swerve away their traducer, which can be termed as self defense. But, while self-defense is simply the protection of oneself, under what circumstances is it appropriate and what actions can be termed self-defense is a debatable topic. Self defense is a subconscious or conscious action taken by an individual to protect himself or someone else from immediate threat of physical harm or verbal threat of physical harm(given the possibility of the attacker to inflict the damage),which should not exceed the amount of physical damage that the assaulter has

In a situation where you feel as if you or others are in immediate danger in most states you have the right to protect you and others and open fire, but they're with be court cases

The domestic violence/assault case of Davide Chase, who is a prominent builder in Nashville, Tennessee, is one that took many legal twists from the moment that the case started (Barchenger, 2015). In this case that there was a 911 called placed from the home of the defendant and his girlfriend, Lauren Bull in June of 2014. After officers had responded to the home, they arrested Mr. Chase for domestic violence/assault and interfering with a 911 call the victim Ms. Bull. The domestic violence/assault law in the State of Tennessee requires a 12-hour hold for domestic violence/assault offenders that can only be waived by the judicial commissioner when determining bail. Mr. Chase was able to gain a waiver of this 12-hour hold because of a local

There are many situations in law that self-defense becomes a crime, even when it is defending your life. Tom Joad, in The Grapes of Wrath, was put in jail for homicide. Although he was just defending himself, ""Yeah! My brother Tom. Better not fool with him. He killed a fella." "Did? What for?" "Fight. Fella got a knife in Tom. Tom busted 'im with a shovel."" (Steinbeck 328). Tom would have died if he did not hit the man with the shovel, even though he was just defending himself he had to go to jail for seven years. He was able to get out after four years due to good behavior. The morality versus law comes in play, having been charged with homicide when the man almost killed

The Stand Your Ground law expands and provides additional defense guidelines involving home or vehicle invasions. Before 2005 and Stand Your Ground, an occupant of a home or vehicle had to reasonably believe they were in imminent danger and that they needed to use force to prevent death or serious bodily hard to themselves or their home/vehicle, and provide proof of that fear (Hussein, 2014). This previous legislation was derived from the English Common Law known as the Castle Doctrine. After 2005 however, the intruder is presumed to be in the home or vehicle with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence and therefore, the resident can use any means to defend his home/vehicle from intrusion. Stand Your Ground in essence

The Castle Doctrine derived from the English common law, which came with the colonists to the New World. Since then it has been established as law in many states across America, and is still spreading. When talking about Indiana Castle Doctrine, Scott M. Kyrouac, J. D., says “The justification for the use of force — and the prerequisite for the successful assertion of a successful self-defense or civil immunity claim — is generally an unlawful entry into the home accompanied by a reasonable belief that the intruder has committed or will commit a crime in the dwelling.” This means that the unlawful entry of a person or persons who does not have the right to be in the home, has committed a crime, or has a will to commit a crime at the residence, serves as a justifiable reason to use self defense.

The facts of how the “stand your ground” law reflects what occurred are simple. The law states that if a person is engaged in any unlawful activity and in the place where they have the right to be but does not intend to retreat before using force with the intent to cause harm or death (Justia, 2015). Miss Jones did not have to kill Mr. Lee because she shouldn’t have returned to the place of residency. Miss Jones stated that she felt threatened but she was away from the home and had every opportunity to have her friends to take her to the Police station, but she chose to go back home and retrieve her belongings and leave. When an argument is taking place, everyone knows that when the woman threatens to leave the man, it is not going to be that

The use of deadly force in defending property is justifiable but depending on whether the circumstances call for it. The same sentiment is shared by the Supreme Court of Appeal, as they believe that an intruder loses their rights when engaging in unlawful conduct, conversely, the person who’s fall victim to the invasion is entitled to protect their rights to whatever extent needed, even if deadly force is required. In cases such as the Van Wyk Case, the use of deadly force is justified in the sense that, the criminal act was a threat to their livelihood, considering that the store was their main source of income and any loss of stock would affect them negatively. Furthermore, deadly force may be deemed a necessary course of action, if

Although, when people think of self defense they tend to think that means killing someone if they were to break into their home, but the castle doctrine specifies that, a person may not use deadly force upon another person unless: he or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself or herself or another against death, serious physical injury, rape, sodomy or kidnapping or serious physical injury through robbery, burglary or arson or any forcible felony (Senate). You may use excessive force if a person who illegally enters, remains after illegally entering, or attempts to illegally enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle legally occupied by such person. A resident does not have to retreat from his or her home or vehicle when a burglar is breaking and entering.

Self-defense is a human right given by birth and one should never be denied the right to defend one’s life. In the article “Self Defense Is a Human Right”, Chris Cox states, “Your right to defend your life and the lives of your loved ones when faced with a deadly threat is not bestowed on you by government. Indeed, self-defense is the most fundamental of all human rights, and it’s the duty of our elected officials to preserve it” (Cox 2013). Cox says that the government should protect and support your right to defend yourself and your loved ones. You should not get punished for defending your own family from harm. It should be common sense and rational that one may use force to stop deadly force. Cox attempts to show that stand your ground laws should be a right given by being human and that being punished for being the defender is not how the