The Right to Defy Criminal Demands: The Duties to Retreat and to Comply with Negative Demands. Eugene Volokh at Volokh Conspiracy.

[Doug_Nightmare]

The Right to Defy Criminal Demands: The Duties to Retreat and to Comply with Negative Demands

I've just finished up a rough draft of my The Right to Defy Criminal Demands article, and I thought I'd…

reason.com

I've just finished up a rough draft of my The Right to Defy Criminal Demands article, and I thought I'd serialize it here, minus most of the footnotes (which you can see in the full PDF). I'd love to hear people's reactions and recommendations, since there's still plenty of time to edit it. You can also see previous posts (and any future posts, as they come up), here.

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/defy.pdf

 

[solus]

The Right to Defy Criminal Demands: The Duties to Retreat and to Comply with Negative Demands

I've just finished up a rough draft of my The Right to Defy Criminal Demands article, and I thought I'd…

reason.com

I've just finished up a rough draft of my The Right to Defy Criminal Demands article, and I thought I'd serialize it here, minus most of the footnotes (which you can see in the full PDF). I'd love to hear people's reactions and recommendations, since there's still plenty of time to edit it. You can also see previous posts (and any future posts, as they come up), here.

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/defy.pdf

dougie, truly quite impressed your post seems to imply you personally "...just finished up..."

now the cited material concerning use of 'deadly force/duty to retreat' is going to have what affect on the gun carrying public with the author's commentary, e.g., "Craig tells Danielle:
1. "leave this bar or I'll kill you."
2. "don't dance with your new lover in front of me at this bar."
[per the author's perspective] " If Danielle refuses to comply with Craig's demands, she will lose her right to use deadly force to protect herself against Craig's deadly attack."

concept to consider...if Danielle is the only one to hear Craig's threat and Danielle is successful in using deadly force protecting herself -- who's the wiser?

the author's unsubstantiated commentary: "This seems to me to be an error on the judge's part" truly sets the tone for the whole article's hyperbole on the disjointed subject matter presented by the author...

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

Interesting

 

[color of law]

Doug, I suggest you send the following to your friend Gary T. Schwartz.

The Right to Armed Self-Defense in the Light of Law Enforcement Abdication, David Bernstein from the Volokh Conspiracy

https://reason.com/2020/10/05/is-the-right-to-armed-self-defense-obsolete/ Abstract This article defends the position that the right of armed self-defense remains important today, in particular in light of the civil unrest of the Summer of 2020. The article proceeds in three parts. The first...

forum.opencarry.org

And as I stated: "What is it with these attorneys that can't read and understand simple Supreme Court opinions? And not one mention of Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550, 562, 15 S. Ct. 962, 966, 39 L. Ed. 1086 (1895)"

And Gary T. Schwartz totally ignores USSC decisions. Self defense is an inalienable right. Apparently Florida understands the Beard case. https://www.appealslawgroup.com/wp-...indo-v.-State-of-Florida-Docket-3D18-1959.pdf (See Foot Note 2)

In medieval England, the King’s peace was “[a] royal subject’s right to be protected from crime (to ‘have peace’) in certain areas subject to the king’s immediate control, such as the king’s palace or highway.” King’s Peace, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). “The weight of modern authority, in [the United States Supreme Court’s] judgment, establishes the doctrine that when a person, being without fault, and in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel force by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self-defense, his assailant is killed, he is justifiable.” Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550, 562, 15 S. Ct. 962, 966, 39 L. Ed. 1086 (1895).

 

[rapgood]

"the author's unsubstantiated commentary: "This seems to me to be an error on the judge's part" truly sets the tone for the whole article's hyperbole on the disjointed subject matter presented by the author..."

hyperbole? He was simply commenting on one decision by one judge.
I'm think that Eugene's article was well thought out, balanced and objective.

 

[color of law]

hyperbole? He was simply commenting on one decision by one judge.
I'm think that Eugene's article was well thought out, balanced and objective.

Victim’s degree of culpability evolved once the victims ceased to be seen as the entity harmed by the crime. The victim became secondary when crimes were declared to be crimes against the state. Now that the crime is against the state the state wants full restitution. And if the state can place a degree of culpability on the victim, the state is assured to collect all the fines and monies they believe they are entitled. This is especially true when, so called, innocent bystanders are harmed. Even though any one of those innocent bystanders could had easily been the victim.

All of this has been written about before and is known as victimology. The state wants its pound of flesh and the defense attorney is going to find a way to reduce the culpability of the criminal. It was the victim’s fault. And the judges buy right into the fraud.

I have sat in courtrooms and watched it happen before my very eyes.

There is the story.

 

[solus]

hyperbole? He was simply commenting on one decision by one judge.
I'm think that Eugene's article was well thought out, balanced and objective.

rapgood, noticed with interest you ignored Eugene's stated concept "...she will lose her right to use deadly force to protect herself against Craig's deadly attack."

further your commentary regarding "balanced and objective" is from what prospective as this member likens the comment to brandon recently referring to a newspeek member a SOB as well as other derogatory names uttered under his breath...all in error -- huh!