NAL Is the “to the wall” doctrine of self defence an “originalist” idea?
Notice what's missing.
I’m reading Tore C. Olsson’s very interesting book Red Dead’s History about the historical background of the 2018 video game Red Dead Redemption 2.
In the book he talks about how up until the early 19th century, America had inherited the doctrine of “to the wall” in regards to self defence from the British crown, which is to say that if confronted by lethal violence one has a duty to retreat until your back is to the wall before retaliation, hence the name.
In the early to mid 1800s however as westward expansion occurred and the courts rejected this doctrine as being incongruous with the immediate needs of the people on the frontier as well as what was perceived as the Americans disdain for retreat.
Is this good legal history? And if it is, would that not make “to the wall” the originalist doctrine? Thanks in advance for any and all replies.
Notice what's missing.
I’m reading Tore C. Olsson’s very interesting book Red Dead’s History about the historical background of the 2018 video game Red Dead Redemption 2.
In the book he talks about how up until the early 19th century, America had inherited the doctrine of “to the wall” in regards to self defence from the British crown, which is to say that if confronted by lethal violence one has a duty to retreat until your back is to the wall before retaliation, hence the name.
In the early to mid 1800s however as westward expansion occurred and the courts rejected this doctrine as being incongruous with the immediate needs of the people on the frontier as well as what was perceived as the Americans disdain for retreat.
Is this good legal history? And if it is, would that not make “to the wall” the originalist doctrine? Thanks in advance for any and all replies.
NAL Is the “to the wall” doctrine of self defence an “originalist” idea?
Notice what's missing.
I’m reading Tore C. Olsson’s very interesting book Red Dead’s History about the historical background of the 2018 video game Red Dead Redemption 2.
In the book he talks about how up until the early 19th century, America had inherited the doctrine of “to the wall” in regards to self defence from the British crown, which is to say that if confronted by lethal violence one has a duty to retreat until your back is to the wall before retaliation, hence the name.
In the early to mid 1800s however as westward expansion occurred and the courts rejected this doctrine as being incongruous with the immediate needs of the people on the frontier as well as what was perceived as the Americans disdain for retreat.
Is this good legal history? And if it is, would that not make “to the wall” the originalist doctrine? Thanks in advance for any and all replies.
0 Comments
0 Shares
28 Views
0 Reviews
