This memorandum is written in response to your September 1, 2015 request for information regarding the case of Samuel V. Morgan. The analysis will show that Samuel is liable to pay the fine. Robert is a senior weight lifter and member of the Alpha Chapter, Beta Phi Gamma Fraternity, Inc. at Howard University. Although he is strong, he is extremely slow moving which forces him to limit himself to fighting with people who are considerably smaller than he. This causes Robert to be characterized as a bully. Morgan is a Carver Hall Resident Assistant at Howard University who is interested in joining the Alpha Chapter, Beta Phi Gamma Fraternity, Inc. He is un-athletic and small, weighing one hundred and fifteen pounds. Samuel is a wrestler at Howard …show more content…
This means the action is done on purpose, without permission, and there is no relationship between the two that allows one party the ability to physically touch the other. The facts reveal that Morgan turned completely around, aimed and drew his gun, and fired which means that he intended on shooting the victim. The facts do not show any evidence that Samuel agreed to be shot, which proves there was no consent from Samuel allowing Morgan to complete his action. Even though there was a relationship between Morgan and Robert, the intentional victim, they did not have a relationship that would make it acceptable for Morgan to shoot Robert. Furthermore, Morgan and Samuel did not have a relationship at all, which automatically makes the shooting of Samuel unprivileged. Hence, the harmful offensive touching is intentional, unconsented, and …show more content…
This means a person can engage in battery while physically protecting themselves, their family, or property from harm as long as they do not use any more force than necessary to prevent an assailant from harming him or her. It could be argued that Morgan acted in self-defense to what he thought was a danger to himself as a result of Robert’s threat from three nights before and the size of the threatening figure approaching him. However, at a distance of thirty yards behind him, it was difficult for him to confirm that the figure was Robert. Also, there is no proof that Samuel offered a verbal or physical threat to Morgan during the night of the shooting; therefore, Morgan did not need to defend himself against Samuel, or the huge figure. Since Samuel, or the huge figure, did not require Morgan to defend himself, the used of a gun as prevention from harm was more than
I. Issue Can Issa be convicted of an intentional homicide under MCP §100 where she inflicted a non-fatal wound on her boyfriend who was then killed in a fatal accident on the way to the hospital? II. Rule Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Murder can be elevated to first-degree murder if the prosecution can prove premeditation and deliberation.
1962 marked the beginning of a new era for the South. Baker Vs. Carr, a landmark Supreme Court Case, determined that malappropriated state legislatures were unconstitutional. The Baker Decision resulted in an increase of legislators from urban districts. Rural legislators, who were once in complete control of state capitols, could no longer dominate legislatures in the South.
In response to the injured party, a defendant can file affirmative defenses to mitigate, or to some extent, rationalize their actions. In the Taukitoku case specifically, Taukitoku used the affirmative defense of self-defense as a rationale for the shooting. Likewise, Taukitoku may have had impaired judgment after Jacob Snyder hit him with a shovel. Self-Defense In the chain of events, Taukitoku had pulled out his gun and pointed it at multiple individuals, including the owner of the home, Jacob Snyder.
Mr. Reese's statement says Joseph pushed him away. 5. The SRO's in their report say “He pushed Coach Reese off the student he was trying to restrain” 6. Why does Ms Khalilah King's Principal's Statement (Olivia packet) unequivically state Joseph came down the stairs and jumped on Mr. Reeses back? Joseph was coming from the 1100 Hallway.
Business Law Case Study Essay: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S (2014) Facts: The Green family runs and owns Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a national arts and skills chain that has over 500 stores and they have over 13,000 employees. Other facts of the case are that the Green family has been able to organize the business around the values of the Christian faith and has explicitly expressed the desire to run the company as told by Biblical principles, one of which is the belief that the utilization of contraception is wicked. Also, the facts show that under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), occupation -founded group health care plans must offer certain sorts of preventative care, for example, FDA-accepted contraceptive approaches.
A system of law in America that we believe to find justice every time does it exists? Well many times we have seen suspects get away with a crime and the victims know what happened and justice wasn’t achieved. The court, in the case of Sibyl Danforth coming to court for manslaughter came to the proper conclusion and found justice in the trial of Sibyl Danforth vs. the State of Vermont. In some court room’s justice isn’t always found.
In reviewing the Supreme Court case of Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S. 551 (2005), we review the allegation of the violation of the Eighth Amendment in the trial court’s use of cruel and unusual punishment in its sentencing of Christopher Simmons; who was a juvenile at the time of the crime; to a sentence of death. In reviewing the facts of the case, we find that Christopher Simmons, then 17 and a junior in high school, along with Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer, planned the commission of a burglary with the intent to commit murder under the perception that they were minors and as such would be able to get away with the crimes. Upon his capture, Simmons, admitted to the crimes and provided law enforcement with the details of the crimes. Because of his age and the nature of the crime, Simmons was considered to be
How far does self defense go? For the Florida man, George Zimmerman, it went as far as taking a life. Zimmerman was acquitted for the murder of Trayvon Martin causing many to become outraged. Oodles of protest were held, primarily by the African American community, for the issue of racial profiling, gun violence, and the way Zimmerman pursued Martin. Despite the controversy surrounding the case, the evidence shows that Zimmerman is, in fact, innocent.
Kirk L. Odom, a convicted Washington D.C. man who served 22 years in prison, for a crime that Odom did not commit. Back in 1981, Kirk L. Odom was found guilty by a Supreme Court Judge, for the rape and robbery of a woman, in her apartment, in Washington D.C.. According to the Washington Post, since 2009 he is one of 5 of rape or murder convicts, that have been vacated based on erroneous forensics and testimony by elite FBI hair experts. Also, The Washington Post gives statistics and years, for rape and murder convictions, and who goes about trying to solve them. When the evidence proves the convicted guilty, like Kirk, the inmate should be exonerated and compensated for his time.
The aftermath of the Kansas-Nebraska Act began the violence known as Bleeding Kansas, which was the result of countless conflicts of pro-slaver and anti-slavery settlers. To make matters worse three years later, the Supreme Court issued its decision on the Dred Scott v. Sandford case. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney stated, “… the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article of merchandise and property, was guarantied to the citizens of the United States, in every State that might desire it, for twenty years. And the Government in express terms is pledged to protect it in all future time….”11
In 1803, the Marbury v. Madison case was brought before the Supreme Court. The plaintiff was Federalist William Marbury and, through the principle of judicial review, he wanted the Court to issue a writ of mandamus so that he can receive official documents from the Secretary of State. Marbury claimed that it was unconstitutional for Madison to withhold the commission, but James Madison was under orders from the president, who could ignore court decisions. This case helped solidate the Supreme Court’s position and power as a branch of government equal to the Legislative and Executive branches.
State of Georgia V. Marcus Dwayne Dixon (2003) Marcus Dixon was a highly recruited high school football player. His life suddenly took a tragic turn when he was falsely convicted of raping a 15 year old girl. The elements around his false conviction could have been avoided with some reform to the criminal justice courts system. Dixon initially had many charges against him but were narrowed down to statutory rape and aggravated child molestation. There was much racial disparity surrounding the jury on Dixon’s case, in that the county that Dixon committed his “crime” was a predominantly white population.
Introduction In the matter of R v Francis , the defendant (Glen Reginald Francis) was being tried for the attempted murder of Timothy Udris. On 8th June 2014, Glenn Francis (‘Francis’) attacked Timothy Udris (‘Udris’), who was hit at least two times with a claw hammer to the skull. The Crown submitted that Francis had attempted to murder Udris, under s306 Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld).
I am here today to defend my client, Thomas Putnam, who has allegedly been sending his daughter, Ruth, out to falsely accuse neighbors of witchcraft. The reason, as declared by Giles Corey, is to buy off his convicted neighbor’s land in order to expand his estate. However, I am here to refute these inadequate claims with the clear and defined truth. Nevertheless, I will not claim that my client, Mr. Putnam, is a complete saint as he (and with numerous others) has his flaws. Yet, with Mr. Corey raising these erroneous claims, I will not stand here and let his faulty and inaccurate logic falsely persuade the jury.
The case of Marivic Genosa validly invoke the "battered woman syndrome" as constituting self defense for treachery attended the killing of her abusive, immature, irresponsible, alcoholic and violent husband while sleeping. The regional trial court in Ormoc found Marivic guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" of parricide and sentence her to death. The court however, is not discounting the possibility of self-defense arising from the battered woman syndrome for in may defined as a woman "who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something she wants her to do without concern for her rights." First, each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be proven to have characterized at least two battering episodes between the appellant and her intimate partner. Second, the final acute battering episode preceding the killing of the batterer must have produced in the battered person's mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life.