Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.3
Site Design by Sekimori

« "Why all the lies?" | Main | More on Utah judge »

Self defense in Seattle

Posted by David Hardy · 30 October 2006 05:33 PM

Clayton Cramer has a post on a case in Seattle. Basically, a guy classed as a mentally ill criminal offender (he'd tried to burn down a day care), and was self-medicating with crack cocaine (generally not considered therapeutic for mental disease) attacked a fellow and was shot.

The attacker's uncle has written an article, basically blaming the person on the receiving end for carrying a firearm and not running away or fighting with fists (as Clayton points out, he'd been knocked to the ground in the first assault). "There is no doubt that Danny acted erratically that day, but he did have a diagnosed mental illness. I am certain he would admit that what he did was wrong, if he were alive, but he was taken from us by a misguided man with a gun."

· Self defense

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Doug In Colorado | October 31, 2006 1:42 PM | Reply

Yeah, like it was the victim's fault for not knowing that the crackhead didn't really mean it when he knocked him over? Does he wear a sweatshirt that says, "Caution, mentally unstable...don't kill me when I attack you."?

Ken | October 31, 2006 4:09 PM | Reply

I think the PC assumption is that an legitimate violent attacker will wear a sweatshirt or other prominant sign saying "Notice: this is an actual violent felonious assault". In the absence of such notification, one is required to assume that the attacker is excused by mental deffect or that society is to blame, so that no real harm is intended.

Leave a comment