Buddha, Christ and Hercules moved to a bar in Wyoming in 1938 …

Inside States v. Bristol (Wyo. 1938), events were usually (summarized by subsequent lawsuits):

[T]He helped the victim get the intoxicated victim out of a liquor store and cocktail lounge. The victim [Skogerson] He later returned and verbally abused the accused, threatening to “stab him in the face” when he left the premises. The accused took a gun with him when he left the premises and went to a cafe. Although the defendant claimed that he knew nothing about it, Victim was in the same cafe. The victim physically assaults the accused, who shoots him. The state claims the defendant was the assailant because he armed himself and went where the victim was.

The trial court ordered the jury to defend itself, but added:

Instruction No. 16. You are instructed that if someone is an aggressor or incites any difficulty or conflict, he cannot claim the right of self-defense to justify killing his opponent unless he first, in good faith, withdraws or tries. . Withdraw from battle, and this too, in such a way that his opponent sees that he wants to withdraw, and he cannot justify killing an opponent, because during an encounter, when to save his own life or to save himself from great bodily harm. In the event of an emergency, he was found guilty of causing inconvenience.

Instruction No. 17. You have been instructed in relation to the law of self-defense, that no one can claim the benefit of the law of self-defense, when he has to deliberately seek its help wherever he knows or believes in himself ….

The state argued:

Didn’t go home from the Bristol liquor store. He set out in search of Scogerson. He came to the armed restaurant and looked to make sure the dead Skogerson and Johnson were present. He walked back to the front of the booth where the dead man sat mocking him like a Picado bull. He knew that his actions would provoke a quarrel and that he could shoot the dead with impunity in the dimly lit hall.

The Bristol The court answered:

The state thinks he should have gone home instead of going to a restaurant. The jury undoubtedly took that view, and it is not impossible that he did not go home. This was the strongest reason for convicting the accused. And, morally speaking, perhaps, that’s what he should have done.

In this case, what is the real event Is It is true that standing up for one’s rights is not always the best way. The fact that the defendant found himself in such a predicament today is a good proof of that. Many times it pays and pays to follow the Buddha’s advice when he calls: “Let man overcome anger with love; let him overcome evil with good” or to follow Christ’s advice when he advises: “Do not resist. Evil, but whoever hits your right cheek, turn to the other cheek. “

But we have not come to such a happy age. The difficulties in reaching such an end seem more terrible than the labor of Hercules. The restaurant was a public place. It was not illegal for the accused to go there. If it was unjust, it was done because the dead person made unjust and unjust threats. The mind refrains from drawing such irrational conclusions.

Argument must, of course, give way at times to the greater good of morality and public policy, and if the latter necessarily avoids restaurants in this case because of a clear threat to the defendant, we must ignore the logic of the situation. But the issues to consider here involve ethics and public policy. It involves a balance of interests between freedom and freedom of movement and its moderation.

The question is whether the law can encourage bullies to shake up land and intimidate citizens with mere threats. We are hesitant to set a rule that will do that.

The policy involved here bears a resemblance to the prevailing policy or rule in some jurisdictions relating to “hot back to the wall”. The rules for avoiding murder are involved in both. In the case of an actual attack, the retreat rule is applied to the wall (where it exists). In such cases before us, the element of time seems to be even more important, seemingly forming a fairly distinct mark in the case of the two classes.

If a man has to reduce his freedom of movement because of threats against him, how long does it take? Is it just for a few hours, a day, a week, a month? It can be as deadly in one case as in another. However, whether our analysis is accurate or not, at least some courts, such as Kentucky and Alabama, have rules for “retreating from the wall.”[] Under this rule, a person has the right to go wherever he wants despite threats against him.

Everyone will agree that a person should not be forced to stay away from his own home to avoid threatening, illegal actions of others. Very few people would disagree that the rule should be the same as going to a man’s place of business. In the face of such threats, there will be disagreements over where to go. Probably everyone agrees that if one needs to go somewhere, one should be allowed to do so. However, there is a degree of necessity.

It would be appropriate for a defendant to be disqualified by a jury, as they may have mistrusted the defendant in this case, so that, if the question of necessity to go is standardized, a defendant would determine that question on his or her risk and his or her independence. Movement will be materially reduced. There is, perhaps, more room for debate in a case where the defendant only goes where his opponent is or for his pleasure. But … a man can be [generally] Go where he has the right to stay, and we are hesitant in the face of the seemingly irresistible authority of that influence, such a regime should not prevail in this state.

“The right to go wherever you want to go, without being threatened, without being threatened, necessarily refers to the right to be where you want to be, without permission or restraint. These comments are specifically governed by the thought of a legitimate right to stay.

“It is true that human life is sacred, but so is human freedom. One is as dear to the eyes of the law as the other, and the other is not to give up and surrender its legitimate status to exist exclusively. The unjust and violent act of man will not temporarily revoke or even temporarily suspend the legal and constitutional rights of his neighbor. ” A

Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button