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 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Get out of line in this restaurant and they don't call a bouncer | Main | UW study: gun violence linked to violent subgroups »

Interesting self-defense case

Posted by David Hardy · 6 July 2014 08:54 PM

Richardson v. State, Mississippi Supreme Court, discussed over at the Volokh Conspiracy. Defendant was menaced by a guy who have moved in, became increasingly violent, and boasted of having been convicted of robbery and murder, of killing an informer in prison, and of belonging to a gang. Defendant eventually killed the guy, and the defense that he had come toward him, menacingly, with one hand behind his back.

The trial court refused to admit evidence that the decedent had in fact been convicted of robbery and murder, etc.. That'd be standard (if unjust, to my gut feeling). The American approach to self-defense keys on a reasonably fear of death or serious injury, and a person's fear could not have been based on what they did not then know (that the claims of conviction and past violence were in fact true).

But, the court reasons, the jury might have had questions about whether the decedent did in fact boast of those things. The fact that the boasts could be proven true might thus be some support for the proposition that the boasts were made. Ergo, the jury should have been allowed to hear of proof that the boasts were true.

· Self defense

Leave a comment