Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
imported post
I got to thinking about this today and I think it may have merit. Feel free to tell my I'm full of it though.
Regardless of how McDonald comes out in SCOTUS and whether they consider the issue of self defense or not, I think we have a fairly good case to bring up.
Why couldn't we find a victim or two from each state and territory; which sadly, should be extremely easy, and file a class action lawsuit against every state and 1983the federal goverment claiming that they are not allowing us to defend ourselves? I'm pretty sure the case law is on our side here and I think SCOTUS has talked about being interested in bringing up self defense. Now, I know some states do allow it to a large degree but others, pretty muchnot at all.
As for the case law that's on our side; it's pretty clear, as most of you know:
Warren v. DC of course and;
Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958);
Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968);
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983);
Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985);
Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982);
Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981);
Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978);
Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977);
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.);
Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969)
and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982).
It's certainly easy to argue that the police have no duty to protect; it's already established case law. It doesn't seem like a stretch to argue that somebody has to protect us, and that somebody is us. Following along, if we have sole duty to protect ourselves we must have the tools with which to do it.
It could also be argued in the case that without castle doctorine people are too worried about the legal and civil consequences of self defense and that we should be allowed the same benifit of the doubt and civil protection of the same police that don't defend us. This could help the states that don't have good castle doctorine; like mine, get it.
To summarize; I just don't see how we wouldn't win. I'm sure there are pitfalls here that I'm not thinking about and someone else has probably had this idea before but I thought I'd bring it up anyway and see what you guys think.
I got to thinking about this today and I think it may have merit. Feel free to tell my I'm full of it though.
Regardless of how McDonald comes out in SCOTUS and whether they consider the issue of self defense or not, I think we have a fairly good case to bring up.
Why couldn't we find a victim or two from each state and territory; which sadly, should be extremely easy, and file a class action lawsuit against every state and 1983the federal goverment claiming that they are not allowing us to defend ourselves? I'm pretty sure the case law is on our side here and I think SCOTUS has talked about being interested in bringing up self defense. Now, I know some states do allow it to a large degree but others, pretty muchnot at all.
As for the case law that's on our side; it's pretty clear, as most of you know:
Warren v. DC of course and;
Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958);
Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968);
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983);
Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985);
Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982);
Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981);
Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978);
Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977);
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.);
Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969)
and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982).
It's certainly easy to argue that the police have no duty to protect; it's already established case law. It doesn't seem like a stretch to argue that somebody has to protect us, and that somebody is us. Following along, if we have sole duty to protect ourselves we must have the tools with which to do it.
It could also be argued in the case that without castle doctorine people are too worried about the legal and civil consequences of self defense and that we should be allowed the same benifit of the doubt and civil protection of the same police that don't defend us. This could help the states that don't have good castle doctorine; like mine, get it.
To summarize; I just don't see how we wouldn't win. I'm sure there are pitfalls here that I'm not thinking about and someone else has probably had this idea before but I thought I'd bring it up anyway and see what you guys think.
