Challenge to Self-Defense Law

There’s an activist in Georgia who supposedly challenging SYG in federal court. In reality he’s challenging centuries of common law, and attacking the very core of self-defense:

“It is not clear what actions would create ‘reasonable belief’ that deadly force is necessary,” said the suit filed in U.S. District Court in Atlanta. “An individual seeking to stand their ground and assert self-defense has no way of knowing if their ‘reasonable belief’ comports with the standards protected by the law and [they] want to ensure that they do not subject themselves to criminal penalties.”

Reasonable belief has always been the standard. This case is pretty obviously a publicity stunt, and I don’t believe the federal courts are going to overturn centuries of common law and statutory law. Besides, after Heller, there’s arguably a constitution right to self-defense. But it’s worth noting that there are enough hucksters out there capitalizing off this case, that they’ll try anything, even attacking the very foundations of the rule of law, to make a name for themselves.

8 thoughts on “Challenge to Self-Defense Law”

  1. Someone lacking that kind of sense, lacks the sense to drive safely or even walk down the street.

  2. Three issues with this lawsuit beyond the absurdity of it’s premise.

    A) Standing. Has this person been a victim where the attacker was not charged? If not, what standing does the person have?
    B) A citizen can not compel the government to act on their behalf. i.e.; you can’t force the .gov to enact law.
    C) Does GA explicitly recognize common law through either statute or case law?

    The last one is an interesting one. If the answer is no, there is a small chance of this suit being possibly successful if the lawyer is actually talented. And no I will not be posting on the internets anything that is not commonly known which could be used, even if it only has a small possibility of being successful, to screw with people’s rights.

  3. I am trying to find a copy of the complaint and I can’t find anything naming Sam Olens this week. But in digging int Markel Hutchins, I see we have a Jr Al Sharpton on our hands and this case is likely nothing more than promotional material.

  4. Wasn’t the term Stand Your Ground the result of a SCOTUS case that affirmed the defendant’s right to defend himself?

  5. If they get a liberal judge, he will rule in their favor. The left-wing of the courts don’t really care that much about precedent.

Comments are closed.