Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-03-23
HUMAN LIFE.
Its Reckless Waste in Tennessee-A
Judge Who Knows the Difference
RetReen Murder md SeIf.Defense.

Its Reckless Waste in Tennessee-A
Judge Who Knows the Difference
Between Murder and SeIf.Defense.
We find the following IN the Gdlldtin
TeRReSseedR with regard 10 a charge de-
livered by Judge 10. Z. Guild to the jury
in the clse Of the State vs.. Mccoy, for the
murder Of Mayo, at Fountain Head, in
July, 1873, tried al Gailatin last week
the comments and charge both being quite
as applicable 10 Davidson as to Sumner
county:
fThe belief seems to exist to a conside-
rable extent in the public mind that one
man has a right TO shoot down another
upon very slight prov0cation, or to pursue
and slay his victim, if he has at any time
put his person in danger. If the juries Of
The country would enforce the criminal law
as thus laid down, We would have fewer
murders occurring in our Slate to disgrace
zens. It is time for criminal juries
to quit being determined in their
verdicts by a wa5ery, siclIly sentiment, that
makes hero out Of every reckless bully
and Desperate waO shoots down his ensmy.
Il has come to it in this country, that all
that man has to 90 to get clear when he
Stays lis ulh EAeAA - ~ EEs AAAuogAA Just
before tie shooting in a position Of some
fancied danger to his life or person, and
then he can pursue his opponent to the
ends of the earth, if needs be, and slay
him, and it will be all right. He is made
a hero of, by 4 sentimental jury, and all
grgundlings in the neighbOrhOOd Of the
killing are taught by the elOquence of cOun-
sci, and the verdicts Of brave and chivalric
- = - L.. !,
virtue and renOWn. All this maudlinism
ought to be incOHtinenLy squelched
in courts Of justice, and the good, law
abiding citizens Of Sumner county will
thank Judge Guild for telling the jgries
that the law is different. They Will thank
him for doing his duty, whether juries do
theirs or not. We wish 10 say that these
remarks are not intended to reflect upon
any particular jury in any case. They are
directed against a fact which IS one that
has become a matter Of notorious comment
among all good and Well-informed citizens
in the county. We are for law and order.
We are for sUppreSsing the shooting and
killing Of citizens. We see no way to have
this monsuous evil stopped, except through
a rigid enforcement OF the penalties Of the
law. Here is the part Of the charge We
refer 10:
ga person has a natural right to de-
fend his own life or person from great
bodily harm. and no human law can de-
Priye him Of this right. But before party
can be justified in Staying, he must honest
ly believe az tie time Of tie Staying that
his own life was ia danger, Or that lie was
in danger Of great bodily harm from the
deceased; and their honest belief must be
=
isting. The danger must be real, or hon
estly believed 70 be 50, at the time. 1t
mus. be appaae..t and impending. There
must be words or overt ac,s at the time OF
the shooting Of the deceased, clearly indica-
tive Of a present purpose on the part Of
the deceased to take the life OF DO great
bodily harm to his slayer. It would
not justify the Staying Of the deceased, if
he was retIeating, endeavOring 10 get away,
and he was pursued and slain. But, if it
should appear by proof that the deceased
had, Just previous TO the shooting, procured
a gun, and presented it 1t Buntin or the
defendant, some seventy yards of, and if it
should further appear that Buntin and the
defendant with their guns pursued the de-
ceased, and the deceased endeayOred to re-
treat, and was pursued some two or three
hundred yards, and slain in a corn field, it
would be a case Of murder in the second
degree, or manslaughler, according to cir
cumstances. And IN such q case
you should look to the character Of
deceased. Was he a dangerous and
violent man? Did he present his gun at
these parties some % yards of? Ifhe did,
and be had been slain at that instant Of
time by Buutin and Mccoy, they wOuld
1. g. l.
will justify one person in Staying another.
There must be a present purpose 10 take
life or do the party great bodily harm, or
the party must honestly believe, upon Tea-
sonable grounds, that this danger was i'm
pending az the time Of the killing. 1t is
not sufficient for the defense to show that
the deceased was a dangerous man, and
that at some future time he intended to
attack OF slay the defendant, and that the
deceased was pursued and slain to prevent
sucl future Attack