 |
| Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. |
Washington, DC—Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. served on
the United States Supreme Court from 1902 until 1932. Still today he’s probably the most quoted
jurist to ever walk the face of the earth.
In 1921 Justice Holmes weighed in on the concept of Stand Your Ground:
"The law has grown, and even if historical mistakes have
contributed to its growth, it has tended in the direction of rules consistent
with human nature. Many respectable writers agree that, if a man reasonably
believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from
his assailant, he may stand his ground, and that, if he kills him, he has not
exceeded the bounds of lawful self-defense. That has been the decision of this
Court. Beard v. United States, 158 U. S. 550, 158 U. S. 559. Detached
reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore,
in this Court at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that
situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it
possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant, rather than to kill
him. Rowe v. United States, 164 U. S. 546, 164 U. S. 558.
Moreover, if the last shot was intentional and may seem to
have been unnecessary when considered in cold blood, the defendant would not
necessarily lose his immunity if it followed close upon the others while the
heat of the conflict was on, and if the defendant believed that he was fighting
for his life."
Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921) (opinion by
Justice Holmes).
Our incredibly ignorant politicians can’t stop trying to tinker with God’s
law of survival by punishing those that understandably value their own lives more than that of a criminal
attacker.
Many African-American
politicians now want to outlaw strong self-defense laws and the so-called Stand
Your Ground laws. What they don’t get is
African-Americans far outnumber other groups for being assaulted and murdered
by their own kind. They need these protections more than anyone!
Altering the natural law of self-preservation will do noting
but cause the imprisonment of crime victims.
I can’t imagine anyone giving a rat’s ass about some law when they're fighting for their lives. There is
an old saying, “It’s better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.” Nature’s laws will always trump any and all
codes, statutes and ordinances.
The natural law of survival serves as a real deterrent for criminals that understandably must weigh the risks that victimizing someone may bring. For too many criminals the thought of jail is just not a substantial concern.
Foolish criminals risk their lives everyday in pursuit of ill-gotten
gains or the perverted gratification of bullying, raping and the killing of
others. Protecting criminals is abhorrent
public policy of outlawing self-defense that does nothing but feed the
community's crime rate.
Comments
I think what is needed is a list of prosecutions/convictions where the prosecutors tried to establish a very unreasonable standard for the "duty to retreat" self-defense laws.
Any ideas on how to go about this?