![]() ![]() Traditionally and exclusively performed by the government. Restrictions on private actors when they perform certain functions (16) The secondĮxception, the public function exception, imposes constitutional Is constitutionally prohibited from doing itself. The entanglement exception applies when the stateĬommands, encourages, or facilitates private action that the government Protections from infringements by private persons to the same extent as (15) There are, however, two exceptions to the stateĪction doctrine that, when they apply, provide constitutional (14) Under the state action doctrine, most of theĬonstitution's protections of individual liberties restrict theĬonduct of government actors, but they do not restrict the conduct of (13) The state action doctrine and its exceptions areĪmong the most fundamental, important, and misunderstood principles ofĬonstitutional law. Persons, is arguably constitutionally permissible because of the stateĪction doctrine. The common law fleeing felon rule, as it applies to private Is constitutionally prohibited from using deadly force under the same Kill a common thief to prevent his escape even though a police officer (12) In these states, a private person may shoot and (11) Despite the Court'sĭecision in Gamer, some states continue to allow private citizens to useĭeadly force to protect property or prevent the escape of nonviolentįleeing felons. Has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a danger of serious Police officer may constitutionally use deadly force only if the officer Gamer, the Supreme Court held that a police officer's use of deadlyįorce to prevent the escape of a suspected burglar violates the FourthĪmendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures. The prevailing view in most American jurisdictions, in Tennessee v. (9) Although the fleeing felon rule was once The arrest of felons, but neither could use the privilege to secure theĪrrest of misdemeanants. Private citizens enjoyed the privilege of using deadly force to secure The common law fleeing felon rule, both law enforcement officers and Protect property or prevent the escape of a fleeing felon even when theįelon does not impose a threat of death or serious bodily harm. Several states permit private persons to use deadly force to (8)ĭespite the widespread focus on stand your ground laws, theĬontinued existence of the common law fleeing felon rule has gone almost Self-defense without imposing a duty' to retreat. (7)įurthermore, all states permit the police to use deadly force in (6) Currently, twenty-four states allow private citizens to useĭeadly force in self-defense without imposing a duty to retreat. National attention, (5) stand your ground laws are neither new nor (4) While Florida's statute has garnered particular That these laws leads to vigilante justice (3) and the needlessĮscalation of disputes that could have been avoided had one party simply Rather they should beĪllowed to confront the threat with deadly force. Of the law maintain that law-abiding citizens should not have to cowerįrom those threatening serious bodily harm. The wisdom of the so-called "stand your ground" laws thatĪllow for the use of deadly force in self-defense, even if the actorĬould safely retreat and avoid the threatening aggressor. Over the past decade there has been considerable public debate over APA style: Tyranny by proxy: state action and the private use of deadly force.Tyranny by proxy: state action and the private use of deadly force." Retrieved from 2014 University of Notre Dame Law School 26 Jul. MLA style: "Tyranny by proxy: state action and the private use of deadly force." The Free Library.The mere fact that you have this option to vote for which overlord you wish to have makes the violence used by them completely legitimate. It doesn't matter how this compares to the ability to not do business with a company. It doesn't matter how much actual power or voice this provides you. Now, why the difference? Simply because once every several years, you have the option to vote for 1 of 2 individuals to go voice their opinion on laws with 500 other individuals. So don't tell me they would be exactly the same thing. However, when the US govt uses violence to enforce conformity to their will/decisions/mandates/etc, virtually everyone sees that as completely legitimate and ME as the immoral one for rejecting their demands. They will see the use of violence by this private entity as wrong, unacceptable, and immoral and would not only refuse to do business with USA, Inc themselves, but may also even endorse, if not support, resistance to their violence. The fundamental and key difference is that if USA, Inc tries to use violence to force me to comply with their will/decisions/mandates/etc, virtually EVERYONE will consider that illegitimate.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |