Self Defence
“A person should be able to defend him or herself if the person believes the he or she is about to be attacked (even if it has not yet occurred but an approaching individual is making threats.)”
Section 7 in the Charter of Rights and Freedom states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security. It also states in section 34 ss. (1) (a) that a person is not guilty of an offence if they think that force will be used against them if they let someone near them who looks like he or she could inflict bodily harm. According to Dictionary.com the definition of self defence is the act of defending one’s person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant. This means that every man and woman
…show more content…
She claimed that she was trying to save her siblings and her mother’s lives including her own. Her mother, Brandi Meadows, says that she is a hero for doing something that she herself was no strong enough to do. The family of the abusive father deny that he was abusive and want Bresha in jail. It is unclear if prosecutors are going to charge her as an adult but i8f they did, she would be facing life in prison with no chance of parole until she has been in jail for twenty years. Over six thousand people have signed a petition to let Bresha go free and not let her go to jail. She spent her fifteenth birthday behind bars in a juvenile detention center in Warren, Ohio. I believe that she should not be charged as an adult and I also believe that the prosecutors should name this as self defence. In my opinion, she was trying to save her family from someone who was really abusive and she was just doing what she thought would be the best way of being free from all the abuse she, her siblings and her mother went …show more content…
Many time, nobody believes the victim, who later ends up going to jail for murder. These types of cases are not fair to the people that have been abuse, threatened or held against their will. The victims try to do everything they can to get away and stay alive and a lot of times, they end up killing the suspect or even getting themselves killed in the process. A lot of times, the jury says that the person is guilty of first or second degree murder. They choose that decision based on the evidence and also based on what the accused has to say about what happened. If the jury believes the accused story and what happened in their point of view, they might still be set to jail but they also might be sent free to live their lives knowing that they killed someone. Many times, the victim of the abuse or the person who was threatened cannot live with what they did and knowing that they killed someone. In many cases, these people end up killing themselves a short while later or even years later because they can’t handle what they did.
In the end, my opinion on self defence is that everyone should be able to defend themselves if they think that they will be harmed or killed. Self defence doesn’t mean that the victim killed the accused. They could have just hurt them really badly like shooting the person in the leg without killing them. But in the end, it all comes down to what the jury believes and
The use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm from the attack of an aggressor, if defender has reason to believe He/She/is/are in danger. Self-defense is a common defense by a person accused of assault battery
In light of the above, Tupac Shakur defense of self-defense is deemed null and void for the reasons that his actions were deliberated and premeditated beforehand, he used more force than was necessary and took the lives of two promising young
The Bill of Rights or the first 10 amendments to the Constitution was proposed to Congress in 1789 by James Madison in response to the Anti- Federalist movement that lobbied for an extended amount of rights that would further safeguard liberty. The 4th amendment in particular was drafted to acknowledge the abuse of the writ of assistance, a “search warrant” issued by the British government to search boats that were thought to contain smuggled material in Colonial America. The 4th amendment can be broken down into 3 parts: what activities are considered to be a “search” or a “seizure”; what is a probable cause for a “search” and “seizure” and finally, how violations should be dealt with. The evolution of the 4th amendment is long and tumultuous, starting from what it meant at time of drafting, to the controversy over different interpretations in modern times. Through all the controversies and the debate over the meaning of the 4th amendment, the essence is always the same: to protect man’s liberty.
“The Fourth Amendment wasn't written for people with nothing to hide any more than the First Amendment was written for people with nothing to say.” (Dave Krueger). The Fourth Amendment protects the people's values, including the right of privacy. The Fourth Amendment includes, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper, effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure, shall not be violated.” When the founding fathers created the Constitution they ensured the people fundamental laws that would be used to any issue portrayed in the Supreme Court. That gave the people a relief that no one is ever above the law that is created. The privacy of the people was a very big value enforced by warrants. In the case of the
The seventh amendment was written to not only protect people from the government but also from each other. This amendment extends to civil cases; whereas, the six...
“A handgun ban is not realistically enforceable. Confiscating guns would require house-to-house searches and alienate the very individuals whose compliances is essential to the success of any regulation. If gun ownership were prohibited, organized crime would step in to provide the firearms that will continue to be procured with criminal intent” (Done Kates). Over the past decade, the media has reported an increase in the severity of violent crimes as individuals have killed and hurt many others, including kids. Since 2006 there have been over 200 mass murders in the United States. Between 2006 and 2011 alone, the FBI has counted over 172 cases of mass killings, not including those unreported from different police agencies to the FBI (“Murders
The right to own a gun has evolved over the years. Owning a gun is not just about possessing it, it’s about knowing you can protect yourself. Every person has the right to protect themselves and feel safe, t...
Are you willing to sit back and become a victim of violent crime or allow the government to tamper with your civil liberties? In recent years, anti-gun politicians have attempted to control guns in the name of crime prevention this is an assault on the Second Amendment rights of US citizens . The Second Amendment states, “ A well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Not only did our Founding Fathers focus their debate on the right of people to keep and bear arms, they devoted energy to encouraging future generations to defend theses freedoms. In defense of gun ownership, Alexander Hamilton said, “If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.” During our country’s development hundreds of law-abiding citizens were able to take up arms against lawless mobs to defend themselves, their family, their homes, and their businesses. They did the job law enforcement simply could not do. Lives were saved. Robberies were prevented. Homes and businesses were defended and left intact, all thanks to the Second Amendment to our constitutional, the right to keep and bear arms.
Throughout the years there has been an ongoing debate over the Second Amendment and how it should be interpreted. The issue that is being debated is whether our government has the right to regulate guns. The answer of who has which rights lies within how one interprets the Second Amendment. With this being the case, one must also think about what circumstances the Framers were under when this Amendment was written. There are two major sides to this debate, one being the collective side, which feels that the right was given for collective purposes only. This side is in favor of having stricter gun control laws, as they feel that by having stricter laws the number of crimes that are being committed with guns will be reduced and thus save lives. However while gun control laws may decrease criminals’ access to guns, the same laws restricts gun owning citizens who abide by the law; these citizens make up a great majority of the opposing side of this argument. These people argue that the law was made with the individual citizens in mind. This group believes that the Amendment should be interpreted to guarantee citizens free access to firearms. One major group that is in strong opposition of stricter gun control laws is the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA argues that having stricter gun control laws will only hinder law-abiding citizens. The final outcome on this debate will mainly depend on how this Amendment is going to be interpreted.
Gun control has been a controversial issue for many years. A vast majority of citizens believe that if gun control is strictly enforced it would quickly reduce the threat of crime. Many innocent people feel they have the right to bear arms for protection, or even just the pleasure of hunting. Americans have a constitutional right to own hand guns and stricter laws and licensing will not affectively save lives.
‘Acts of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause, do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavorable sentiments, and, when needful, by the active interference of mankind. The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people.’
There are many cases where self- defense has been used as a plea where the victim felt they were in harms’ way or unable to escape a specific situation that ended badly. The definition for self- defense is: 1. Defense of oneself when physically attacked 2. Defense of what belongs to oneself, as ones work or reputation 3. (Law) the right to protect oneself against violence or threatened violence with whatever force or means reasonable or necessary. According to an expert on battered women, a woman must experience at least two complete battering cycles before being labeled a battered woman. (Walker) According to Dowd, “he believes the proper use of BWS assists the fact finder to understand the state of mind of the battered woman at the time she fought back against her abuser.”(1) Women should be able to use BWS as a plea when habitual abuse occurs within a relationship with a significant other and results in violence or worse death.
Murder is considered a serious crime in our country. The loosely defined term of murder implies that a person who kills another human being with intent is known as being the worst kind of violent crime we see in our society. Any unlawful killing requires that a living person be killed and it does not mean that the guilty person feels any hatred or spite in order to plan and execute the act of murder. Moreover, the destructive acts that end peoples lives are classified as homicides which include manslaughter and first and second degree murder. More important, the justice system has put different labels on such crimes, but it also allows room for criminals to get away with murder.
Self-defense is “the right to prevent suffering force or violence through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting force or violence.” When translated into layman’s terms it means when being attacked a person has the right to fight back with the same level of force. This does not mean, if a man starts to hit another man, the first man has the right to mortally wound his assailant. The third paragraph in Section 5-2-606 of the law reads,
With the growing rates of crimes like rapes, murder, kidnapping and robberies it has become extremely important to learn self defense. You need to make sure that you are ready to defend yourself in any emergency. Not only girls and women need to learn self defense, but men should also know how to defend themselves in the situation of a danger.