The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-01-13
y WARNING.

y WARNING.
Law nas beea siua5cAted. the puzzle gwen
ddea protection ard safeguard from violent
ands. and strong warning issued guardians
III. saeaea .az2a zSlzioaS IN sl.a TrTeag sass,
TAe verdict q guilty. ~Allz l.kat 2zz, viii
srve It's pavgase. sna Is directly ia line with
Ae Ysews which TAt rsrgiassa has maintained
SRA regas. 70 this cass s.ure The special otHcer
rs exansr&tes by "a magistrate several DAYS
ssssr gAe kslssnx as4- sas Fass Grounds,
clotAs@ wizA aatAe-stg ao6 saprartec By the
satafes 2aa administrators az justice. "a rol.ce
sran OF special osscer should - hard pat before
se rvscrgs - tas 7sa - defense given him.
RE r.ssol. b3sek3a=k- handouts ana uigat stick
sre TO D. carried by IRE csEger Of the l4w to rep
~eent the might - the Law and It's physical abil-
sy Of enforcement, aud rot IS individual YEA.
sors OF attack on slight provoeation. The idea
hat policeman is on the defensive a. aH hours
IL the day and night Is TO be entertained as ap-
plying to a minority element OF tho citizenship
ii any community. Were the element which he
segards as antasonlstie in the majority there
EouId be no policemen ard lawlessness would be
The order of the day.
While the doctrine OF selfdefense IS sound
sne. and what is written on the statute books
II d but secondary TO the first law Of nature when
This theory Of innocence is advanced 1T should
be carefully dissected and analysed. selfde-
Tense is the strongest and the most employed
argument of non-cupabihty offered in battery
and homicide in this country. 1t is inTa-
Il siably the adopted by an accused officer Of
the law. In majority Of instances. perhaps, it
has been shown that the staying minion OF the
& law was actually ia jeopardy OF bodily harm,
md convictions are few This IS all the more
]. reason why the penalty should be commensurate
when the theory of selfdefense is battered down.
4 Is 1t in this case, and haste aud Lack of a
proper regard for the rights and life of citizen
L proven. Laws made TO punish offenders and
I not to prohibit crime. The officer Hho takes the
path 10 enforce the law should be prepared to
deal with offenders. 1t is nor a pleasant expe
rience 10 be arrested and imprisoned, and the
Individual facing them IS in pleasant frame
Of mind when the arm Of the law is laid upon
him. The experience with him is unpleasant
and unless an Individual feels that he is man
enough to enforce the law without resortinE to
the deatb-dealing implements with which the
government, as represented by him, IS equipped
Il were best he remain 4 private citizen
The theory OF selfdefeuse failed in the Pur
year case. after it had been upheld by a magis
proved that the case was one which should not
have stopped in a magistrates court, and cspec.
tally when that Official had but few days be
fore heavily sentenced man who resisted the
4 law and announced his intention Of giving
something akin to license to officers
II is to be regretted that Rnryeax's hassiness
has cost him 500 and his position, but much
was Involved liz this Proceeding. Twelve men
have voted Purpear guilty of involuntary man
Slaughter. which seems g simple enough conyic.
ffon under the circumstances. and in view of
Z Ill the facts established st the trial Few men
4 have been more lenientiy dealt with in the mat
Ter of sentence than this officer
There is one feature of the trial, however
haste was deemed necessary in arrival at YER
dict. This affords the convicted officer and his
friends opportunity TO say that had this haste
not been counseled totally different verdict
would have been rendered. Under the Law Pur-
year justly entitled TO have full elaboration
on his case by the jury. II need be, he priv
1leged TO have several .dfles hear the evidence
and attempt to arfiv" ~ conclusion. This
would have been preferable TO the courts init
mating that the jury would be locked up after
certain hour unless verdict returned by
that time The question of whether not the
Jurors assembled their minds in an opinion on
\ the issue than they felt they could, by
reason of this intimation. is not involved. The
tact that the jury rendered its verdict some
1 time before the hour named is sufficient to give
rise 10 the question BY the defendant What
!. would they have done had not the hour been
& fixed?
4Nrs~