Steeple Vs Eagen Case Study

The Stand Your Ground Laws are becoming a hot topic in today’s news. Headlines are flooded with stories about cases around the country. These laws surround everyone from your everyday citizens to prominent sports figures and entertainers. The Stand Your Ground laws provide individuals with certain rights to protect themselves in events where they may feel threatened. It is also known as the Castle Rule, most of the United States have adopted some form of this law to protect its’ residents who may feel the need to use self-defense in situations where they may feel threatened. These laws spread quickly around the country since Florida passed the first laws in 2005. The law in most states would suggest that a person attempt to retreat

Two students are staring at each other after a brutal verbal attack. Other students are listening in on this awesome battle of ‘wits’. Then, a loud bang and screams come from the courtyard of a magnificent building of education. The student on the ground holding on to life by a thread didn’t realize that his opponent was packing heat, and he crossed the line for the last time. Breaking through all of the shooters self-control and causing him to draw a firearm that he was legally allowed to have on

The article “Shootings Test Limits of New Self-Defense Law” by Ralph Blumenthal tells the story of Joe Horn, a man in Texas, who shot two men in what he claimed was self-defense under the recently instated “castle doctrine.”

i)The Cross and Egerton Commission 1880s was initially set up in 1886 to look at the educational provision of children who were found to be blind, deaf and dump. It effectively initiated the idea of segregated or separated provision

The threat must create an apprehension of imminent physical harm or contact, and that apprehension must be present and continuing. This is satisfied on the facts by Lawless threatening Chalmer and continuing to do so whilst standing next to his car, as he struck the window and eventually Chalmer’s face. It’s stated that Chalmer felt ‘uncomfortable’ and

Ewanchuk influenced Canadian law in that it gave way to the fact that no means no. The Supreme Court decision set a precedent of implied consent not being an eligible defence, as well as that only the complainant’s state of mind determines consent in a sexual assault case. Before this precedent was set in place, judges would usually only decide the reasonableness of the complainant’s state of mind at the time of the assault, and then compare it to the accused’s testimony in order to decide a verdict. This is what happened in the first trial with McClung. Now, since the Supreme Court’s verdict, as soon as the judge finds the complainant states that she had felt fear during the sexual touching, the burden of disproving that a crime took place shifts to the accused. A line from the Supreme Court’s decision: “As irrational as a complainant’s motive might be, if she subjectively felt fear, it must lead to a legal finding of absence of consent.” Meaning that no matter what actions she displayed suggesting otherwise, as long as the complainant tells the court that she felt fear during the encounter, that is all the Crown needs for a reasonable conviction, and the burden of proof essentially switches over to the

stated that all four boys had been drinking; and that the defendant was outnumbered 4 to 1. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the defendant’s belief that he was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm was unreasonable. Id. The court found that evidence showed that the respondent tried to avoid a confrontation and made repeated efforts to flee. Id. The court also stated that the defendant’s fears were well founded and borne out by the appearance and conduct of Gale’s four companions and by the fact that the boys were in no way discouraged by the defendant’s gun. Id. The State’s evidence was that the shots were fired in rapid succession. The State did not establish a sufficient interval between the shots which would have allowed the defendant to realize he was no longer in danger. Id. The court held that the evidence failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent did not act in

In Pennsylvania, a plaintiff claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress must establish one of these four situations: “1) that the defendant had a contractual or fiduciary duty; 2) plaintiff suffered a physical impact; 3) plaintiff was in a “zone of danger” and at risk of an immediate physical injury; or 4) plaintiff had a contemporaneous perception of tortious injury to a close relative.” Doe v. Phila. Cmty. Health Alternatives AIDS Task Force, 754 A.2d 25, 27 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000). The first element does not apply to our client because there was no fiduciary or contractual duty relationship. Secondly, it could be argued that Nordlund suffered a physical impact because after Sumner’s accident, Nordlund could not eat, could not

We are writing in reference to the ELD mandate and the negative effect it will have on our companies, other small trucking companies nationwide, will create a hazardous and unsafe environment for the public. Our Trucking companies were thriving because of our hard work and dedication until the ELD Mandate.

Students walk college campuses thinking of homework, friends, social happenings, but rarely thinking about their safety. Students on college campuses are defenseless against an armed assailant because an armed assailant can shoot and harm many students in a short time before the police arrive. There are opposing views about allowing concealed weapons on college campuses, and the debate has been making news lately with the number of school shootings and people getting killed and injured rising. According to Robert Birnbaum in The Magazine of Higher Learning, “More Guns advocates argue that college students and faculty should be able to carry weapons for their own protection, particularly since history has shown that colleges can’t protect them from assailants” (Birnbaum 7). For students to properly defend themselves against armed assailants, they should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus.

Under this situation, Cuttle should be convicted of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty, since although Cuttle did not aid Snawley in committing the offence, Cuttle did encourage the act by exclaiming “Yippee” three or four times as stated by the officer, therefore, Cuttle should be convicted of aiding or abetting the assault of a police officer in the execution of his duty. For instance, the actus reus is present in the fact that Cuttle encouraged Snawley by yelling “Yippee”, and the mens rea can be interrupted from the objective test as a reasonable person would have foreseen the risk of bodily harm to the victim by encouraging the principal. If the officer had asked for assistance from Cuttle, by

In reading the essay titled, “Guns Don’t Belong in the Hands of Administrators, Professors, or Students,” the author addresses the concern for safety on college campuses. The author Jesus M. Villahermosa Jr., who was a deputy sheriff for Pierce County Sheriff's Department for thirty-three years of dedicated service until he retired in 2014. Certifications include: being the first certified Master Defensive Tactics Instructor for law enforcement personnel in the state of Washington, serving as a Firearm's Instructor, and an Active Shooter Instructor. Villahermosa not only discusses important questions when considering the terms of firearms on campus, and in the hands of administration and faculty but offers his experience, while informing the reader, of the likeliness of more heightened danger due to inadequate training which could potentially lead to death and other repercussions for the person holding the firearm.

The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: 1. the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; 2. the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and 3. the conduct must be the cause 4. of severe emotional distress. This is exactly what happened din this case. Steve Steel not only knocked the phone out of Prudence’s hand but also broke down the door and threatened Prudence with force and made her scared for her life. I do believe that negligence is a part of this case. A person who engages in activities that pose an unreasonable risk toward others and their property that actually results in harm, breaches their duty of reasonable care. Steve Steel did not show a proper care of duty with Prudence. I think that Steve Steel should also be responsible for all of the physical and mental damages since he did not show reasonable care. I think the tort liability in this case would be assault and battery. An assault involves three things that we see in this case. An assault occurs when an intentional, unlawful threat or "offer" to cause bodily injury to another by force; under circumstances which create in the other person a well-founded fear of imminent peril; where there exists the apparent present ability to carry out the act if not prevented. A battery is the willful or intentional touching of a person against that person’s will by another person, or by an object or

One reason why guns should be legalized on a college campus is for protecting yourself and you other peers. There is an argument going on whether or not guns should be considered on campus. In Georgia, guns are allowed on campus and a few people state their opinion on this controversial topic. In the article “Georgians have the right to defend themselves by Mandi Ballinger” The author says “it is their own decisions to defend and protect themselves”(Ballinger 1). What this quote means is that others feel like they are not

EU Design’s management style was founded in a very small business environment. There was little standardization of individual tasks. In a small business, everyone on staff is expected to be involved in all day-to-day business activities. This creates a very informal relationship between workers and management. In addition to the small business aspect, EU Design is in a creative industry. Many of the people in this industry are not trained or educated in formal business practices. A creative mindset takes precedence over the structure of the business.