How is it that Tennessee does not have a legal precedent like this:
In the 1931 case of Gibson v. Commonwealth, the Kentucky Court of Appeals summarized Kentucky jurisprudence on self-defense in a very definitive, and somewhat emphatic, manner. “It is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs. He does not have to…he is not obligated to retreat, nor to consider whether he can safely retreat, but is entitled to stand his ground, and meet any (life-threatening) attack made upon him with a deadly weapon….” Gibson v. Commonwealth, 34 SW 936 (Ky. 1931).
For that matter, how is it that America does not have this kind of legal precedent? It seems to me that the judge in this case adequately described the basic right to self-defense that all humans possess, regardless of whether some folks are willing to admit it or not.
Agreed. The idea that the law would require a citizen to run away from a lethal threat to his life is morally repugnant.
What gives the state the right to tell people “If you face deadly force against your life you must take X course of action, regardless of the circumstances?”
Nothing gives the state that right – after all, it has no rights. That said, we have finally developed a society where defending one’s self is frowned upon. Given that, we are a scant step away from once-Great-Britain ourselves.
However, you know the quote about 6 men and 12…