Thursday, July 18, 2013

Stand Your Ground Laws are Natural Rights and Long Time Civil Rights

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.  


Anonymous said...

Yes, Stand Your Ground Laws ARE Constitutionally Protected Right. This is why the InJustice Department and puppetmaster obama are so adimately against them. Their goal is a Government of Global Socialism, and Sharia Law, and they ignore the Constitution daily, yet the entire Congress does nothing about it but talk. Are they truly New World Order, One World Government Controlled, and our Politicians merely just putting on an Act of verbal only resistance for the Sheeple-American Public? Think about it.

Anonymous said...

Dear Paul,

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?