Han Shot First and the Law is Ok With It

There’s no denying that stand-your-ground laws cause controversy and concern in our country. However, regardless of whether or not you agree with them, the use of force to defend yourself when you feel as though your life is threatened is respected throughout all states in the union, regardless of whether or not the state has a stand-your-ground law. People in our country are allowed to defend themselves to the death (either theirs or that of their opponent) if they feel as though there is a legitimate threat to their wellbeing.

If we were to take this law and apply it to all planets in the universe (both fictional and non-fictional), we would inevitably come to the classic Star Wars question of who shot first, Han or Greedo? It turns out that Han did shoot first (this was learned a while ago) and it was only in later versions of the movie that it was edited so the Greedo shot first, therefore preserving Han’s legacy as a hero. However, if we apply the law of the United States of America to Tatooine, it wouldn’t have mattered if Han shot first. Under US law, he felt as though his life was in danger and therefore his shooting of Greedo before Greedo shot wouldn’t sentence him to a murder charge.

When George Lucas changed the original scene in the re-release of the movie, he earned the ire and anger of Star Wars fans across the world. Now it seems as though those edits wouldn’t have mattered. Thanks to an article by University of Alabama School of Law professor John Gross, fans can rest easy in the fact that their anger was righteous and Han’s shooting first wouldn’t have changed the essence of his character. Lucas said that he changed the scene because he didn’t want Solo to be seen as a cold-blooded killer. As Gross’ article clearly states, Han’s shooting first wouldn’t have made him a murderer because his actions were totally justified.

If you’d like to read more, the link is here.

from Derek Byrd’s Law Blog Derek Byrd’s Latest Law Blog Post http://ift.tt/1mdf38H

Florida Dog Bite Law is Overturned After Review

Recently, I wrote a post about a law that is being challenged in my hometown of Sarasota, Florida. The law I spoke about has been a source of controversy since it was enacted and says that any dog who bites a person hard enough to require stitches or reconstructive surgery, regardless of the reason behind the bite, has to be euthanized due to it being a danger to people. As you can expect, there are a number of reasons that this law has faced the amount of criticism that it has — the law is very cut and dry and unless there are concerted efforts at appeals, the law ignores any context behind the dog bite (even if the dog was biting an intruder during a home invasion).

http://ift.tt/1Ie2CDQ

The law was finally brought under legal review when a dog named Padi bit a child’s ear after allegedly being instigated. What is agreed is that the dog moved to a corner to escape the child only to have the child follow it, leading to the eventual bite. Padi’s owner, Dr. Paul Gartenberg, brought the case to court where a judge ended up reviewing the law as a whole. Judge Andrew Owens ended up throwing both the case against Padi out of court, as well as declaring the law “arbitrary and unduly oppressive.”

This overturning of the law and it being struck down is with no doubt a huge weight off of the shoulders of all dog owners in the state of Florida. Dogs are animals and even the best trained dog will lash out either in fear or panic when it is backed into a corner with no chance of escape. Just like you wouldn’t punish a human as fully for hurting someone in self-defence, the same should goes for dogs because they’re just animals. Hopefully this law will lead to less needless deaths for pets that are honestly more than just pets, they’re family members.

If you’d like to read more, the link is here.

from Derek Byrd’s Law Blog Derek Byrd’s Latest Law Blog Post http://ift.tt/1mseI2c