The ordinary common law of self-defense requires four elements, ALL of which must be present, in order to justify self-defense. This is the law in the thirty-four (34) "Stand Your Ground" states:
In the thirty-four (34) "stand your ground states", the above is the law of self-defense. The prosecution must prove the absence of one of the elements, all of which must be present for a successful claim of self-defense. By contrast, in sixteen (16) states, there is an additional requirement before someone successfully can claim self-defense, which effectively places the burden of proving a negative on the defendant:
The fifth element is not used in most states because although it sounds like a nice peaceable idea to the naive, in practice it creates injustice. In the calm of the courtroom, with a prosecutor concocting theories of possible "avenues of retreat" that he took time to think about, some of which may have been risky or not obvious to the scared person under imminent threat, it may be impossible for the victim of aggression to prove that he didn't realize he could have tried some avenue of escape to "maybe" safely avoid having to use responsive violence. In addition, even when a claim of self-defense ultimately would be successful, it not infrequently necessitates subjecting the defendant to the financially and emotionally devastating harm of a trial. That prospect also results in convictions of those who cannot afford to go through an entire trial to prove that they could not retreat, and thus plead out.
The media consistently get the law wrong. There is no such thing as a "stand your ground" defense that differs from ordinary self-defense. It is not some novel law enacted in so-called gun-nut states. California, e.g., was one of the first states to recognize that placing the burden of proving no safe avenue of retreat on a victim of aggression is a very bad idea. Moreover, it is not an expansion of "the Castle Doctrine", a distinct old common law with a different rationale, with somewhat different elements in different jurisdictions, which allows a person in his own home to use deadly force under certain circumstances against an intruder.
The foregoing is a summary of information from Andrew Branca, Esq., author of "The Law of Self-Defense". There are nuances, of course. Branca's website is at: http://lawofselfdefense.com/
Larry Johnson at No Quarter: Obama Goes to West Point and Proves He's a Moron.
Misogyny? Guns? What prescription psychopharmaceuticals was the little personality-disordered asshole fed during his childhood?. Let's also think about what the media is NOT yammering about: the uber-materialistic, snobbish, woman-objectifying, pampered, no-responsibility, no interests, no-values, dragged-to-therapists, anti-gun-but-World-of-Warcraft, sense-of-entitlement lifestyle the boy was raised in. Or the joint custody -- which the kid in his "manifesto" also stated that he couldn't stand. (And from where -- in this cosmopolitan, globe-trotting multiculti lefty family and culture did he get his racist attitudes?) Ooops.
Mallory Factor, Professor at The Citadel, and author of Big Tent: The Story of the Conservative Revolution, explains in the below video. There are several broad, sometimes politically conflictual branches of conservatism in the U.S. today -- the neocons (who originally were FDR supporters, but veered away out of concern about communism and continuing U.S. security), the social conservatives, and the libertarians.
Notwithstanding their differences, however, and whatever their primary focus or interest, all conservatives still share four basic
(2) Maintenance of the "rule of law". This is the founding precept of the United States, and the United States Constitution. Laws aren't always perfect, inasmuch as they have to be applied to all kinds of differently-situated individuals, but the arbitrary, capricious, and/or biased decision-making of dictators, monarchs, unchecked bureaucrats, and other officials is a danger that nearly everyone recognizes.
(3) Protection of individual rights and freedoms. Sometimes this is a legal balancing act ("Your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose".) Few people, however, would say that they aren't in accord with this. Some just differ on what those "rights and freedoms" are.
(4) Belief in a law higher than man's law. Most social conservatives and evangelicals would say this is "God's" law, or the law of the "Creator". Others would simply refer to this as "natural law", e.g. the right of a person to his own bodily integrity, or the right of a mother to her baby. People may differ on just what these natural laws are, or how they are defined ("life, liberty, property"), but nevertheless these "higher-than-man's-laws" are what are recognized by the Bill of Rights. They are the "laws" that would exist in the absence of government. The Bill of Rights has been interpreted to constrain not just the federal government, but also the states' formerly plenary sovereign powers over their citizens' security, health, welfare, and morals.
Excellent "conversation" at http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/lifting-the-veil-of-islamophobia. Says it all. Lengthy, but worth the read. Snips:
Ace of Spades nails it. Excerpts (emphasis added):
The method that they are offering to avoid rote memorization or the mechanical method of subtraction involving two digit numbers is actually more conceptually difficult than the memorization or mechanical... method.
Understanding cannot be taught by rote, let alone by elementary school teachers who mostly likely themselves are learning these "methods of perception" (not infrequently tantamount to fancy variations of finger-counting) by rote. The forced mental shenanigans that give rise to the "tricks" and "shortcuts" do not facilitate understanding themselves but are a manifestation of it: they arise naturally and comfortably -- and individually -- after mastery of the basics (once rote manipulations have become "second nature"), and then are applied variably by different individuals in different contexts, depending on what works for the individual. For example, one person habitually memorizes using rhyming mnemonics, while another visualizes a model (while yet another somehow just "remembers" because he has so much related material already mastered and structured that retention of the new information is effortless). For example, one person rapidly subtracts 19 from a larger number by subtracting 9 and then 10 (without consciously thinking about it), while another is mentally subtracting 20 and then adding 1 (and yet another just "remembers" or knows because, like the multiplication tables, the same or similar equation or numbers repeatedly have arisen and been used before). And so forth.
Dinesh D'Souza talks about his documentary 2016: Obama's America and the anti-west perspective of anti-colonialism. Obama did not grow up in the United States, and does not identify with America.
But when the snivelling white male who purports to be president of Brandeis (one Frederick Lawrence) does it out of deference to Islam, Miss Hirsi Ali's blackness washes off her like a bad dye job on a telly news anchor.
White feminist Germaine Greer can speak at Brandeis because, in one of the more whimsical ideological evolutions even by dear old Germaine's standards, Ms Greer feels that clitoridectomies add to the rich tapestry of 'cultural identity': 'One man's beautification is another man's mutilation,' as she puts it.
But black feminist Hirsi Ali, who was on the receiving end of 'one man's mutilation' and lives under death threats because she was boorish enough to complain about it, is too 'hateful' to be permitted to speak... Read the entire article at The Spectator.
SITE - INDEX |
LIZNOTES MAIN PAGE |
COLLECTIONS | WOMENS HISTORY LIBRARY
| RESEARCH ROOMS
| THE READING ROOM
FATHERLESS CHILDREN STORIES | THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE | WOMAN SUFFRAGE TIMELINE | THE LIZ LIBRARY ENTRANCE
as otherwise noted, all contents in this collection are copyright 1996-2014
the liz library. All rights
This site is hosted and maintained by argate.net Send queries to: sarah-at-thelizlibrary.org