ComicsChildrenHumorFitnessReferenceITLawCookingHobbiesTeachingSelf-HelpPhotoFantasyHistoryTestsCalendarsFictionLGBTTeenagersTransportMemorisMedicineMysteryRelationshipsPoliticsBusinessSpiritualityRomanceBiblesMathSportTravelOtherNo category
» » No Duty to Retreat: Violence and Values in American History and Society
No Duty to Retreat: Violence and Values in American History and Society e-book

Author:

Richard Maxwell Brown

Language:

English

Category:

Other

Subcategory:

Humanities

ePub size:

1923 kb

Other formats:

lrf lrf lit txt

Rating:

4.9

Publisher:

University of Oklahoma Press; New edition edition (March 15, 1994)

Pages:

278

ISBN:

0806126183

No Duty to Retreat: Violence and Values in American History and Society e-book

by Richard Maxwell Brown


Unless, of course, Richard Maxwell Brown had distilled some fundamental truths, insights into the Human Condition affected by ‘The Times’.

Unless, of course, Richard Maxwell Brown had distilled some fundamental truths, insights into the Human Condition affected by ‘The Times’. No Duty to Retreat' appeared to be a scholarly muse of underlying culture and values that would explain the 'Why' things proceeded in the American West the way they did, as opposed to, say, Mexico, Canada, even Australia. Brown, as well as Wallis, though, seem to think that those that might read their books operate under the impression that there is no difference between the old west myths are the true 'Wild West'.

Brown Richard Maxwell (EN). In 1865, Wild Bill Hickok killed Dave Tutt in a Missouri public square in the Wests first notable walkdown. One hundred and twenty-nine years later, Bernhard Goetz shot four threatening young men in a New York subway car. Apart from gunfire, what could the two events possibly have in common? Goetz, writes Richard Maxwell Brown, was acquitted of wrongdoing in the spirit of a uniquely American view of self-defense, a view forged in frontier gunfights like Hickoks. When faced with a deadly threat, we have the right to stand our ground and fight.

No Duty to Retreat book. Goetz, writes Richard Maxwell Brown, was acquitted of wrongdoing in the spirit of a uniquely American view of self-defense, a view forged in frontier gunfights like Hickok’s. In 1865, Wild Bill Hickok killed Dave Tutt in a Missouri public square. We have no duty to retreat.

Home Browse Books Book details, No Duty to Retreat: Violence and Values . Over 14 million journal, magazine, and newspaper articles.

Home Browse Books Book details, No Duty to Retreat: Violence and Values i. .No Duty to Retreat: Violence and Values in American History and Society. By Richard Maxwell Brown.

Professor emeritus Richard Maxwell Brown, goes on to bash moments in American history because he sees them under the ugly light of Stand Your Ground. Quotes like I have not yet begun to fight! Damn the torpedoes!

Professor emeritus Richard Maxwell Brown, goes on to bash moments in American history because he sees them under the ugly light of Stand Your Ground. Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty. and pretty much anything Ronald Reagan said against the Soviet Union were awful examples of that nasty American trait of No Duty To Retreat. I think I can summarize the book (and the author) with the one word that kept popping in my brain while reading

Brown (Northwest & Pacific History/Univ

Brown (Northwest & Pacific History/Univ. Brown also recognizes that American courts have vitiated and, in most cases, eliminated this requirement. A confused and tedious treatment of the legal doctrine and moral tradition in America of ""no duty to retreat""-the doctrine that one need not retreat when attacked, but may stand one's ground and defend oneself.

Brown, Richard Maxwell (1979). Brown, Richard Maxwell (1991). Southern Violence - Regional Problem or National Nemesis?: Legal Attitudes Toward Southern Homicide in Historical Perspective". New York: Oxford University Press). Ross, Luevonda P. (Fall 2007).

Richard Maxwell Brown23 de enero de 1992. Oxford University Press. The right to stand one's ground, Brown tells us, appeared relatively recently. Under English common law, the threatened party had a legal duty to retreat "to the wall" before fighting back. But from the nineteenth century on, such authorities as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes rejected this doctrine as unsuited to both the American mind and the age of firearms.

Retreat : Violence and Values in American History and Society.

No Duty to Retreat : Violence and Values in American History and Society. Select Format: Hardcover. In 1865, Wild Bill Hickok killed Dave Tutt in a Missouri public square in the West?s first notable "walkdown.

Richard Maxwell Brown

Richard Maxwell Brown. No Duty to Retreat takes as its starting-point the increased popularity in American society of the old English common-law concept that a person under physical attack has the right to stand his ground, defend himself, and even kill his assailant in self-defence in certain circumstances. This doctrine came to public awareness recently when Berhard Goetz took the law into his own hands when assaulted by four youths in a New York City subway train.

In 1865, Wild Bill Hickok killed Dave Tutt in a Missouri public square in the West’s first notable "walkdown." One hundred and twenty-nine years later, Bernard Goetz shot four threatening young men in a New York subway car. Apart from gunfire, what do the two events have in common? Goetz, writes Richard Maxwell Brown, was acquitted of wrongdoing in the spirit of a uniquely American view of self-defense, a view forged in frontier gunfights like Hickok’s. When faced with a deadly threat, we have the right to stand our ground and fight. We have no duty to retreat.


Sti
Historical evidence of the American development of firearms and self-defense and its unique position in the world.
Winail
This is an important sequel to the author's seminal work on violence and the American character, "Strain of Violence." It helps one to understand the obsession with firearms and the gunfighter mentality that has so permeated U.S. culture, from the time of the Wild West right up to the present day.

Well researched and scholarly, Professor Brown thoroughly explores the contours of this historical "right" to self-defense.

Highly recommended.
Qwne
No Duty to Retreat, a nuanced attempt at interpreting America's patterns of violence in a new light, dating from the earliest days of the American frontier to modern times, does not succeed in making its case. The world-view shift necessary to accept the basic premise the author puts forth is just too far a leap, and the book offers no stepping stones for this to be anything but that, a leap. I'm not a scholar, nor a student of jurisprudence, so the reader should temper my views with that in mind.

Michael Wallis, in his book ‘Billy the Kid, the Endless Ride’, references Richard Maxwell Brown, author of 'No Duty to Retreat' several times as a scholar of the Old West. Having read Wallis' work, I was intrigued by what seemed to be a new perspective on the ‘Wild West', where Wallis alludes to Brown’s concept of a ‘Civil War of Incorporation'. Immersed in the minutiae of some very specific criminals, lawmen and Average Joes of 'The Old West', I thought I should make an effort to see this unfamiliar ‘big picture’.

Indeed, the thrust of my queries has always been to get past the nature of Western fokelore, or as Brown would call it 'fakelore'. On this, I agree with Brown. That genre of literature called Westerns is, after all, America's version of fairy tales, morals with horses, wild Indians, six-shooters and town marshals. The Old West is a historical perspective that I grapple with, along with lots of other history concepts, in hopes of better understanding the Human Condition. I was raised on television westerns and John Ford Movies, and all of them were blatant dramatic commentary of the times, or stories with cowboy trappings to be followed out, like Stars Wars of Star Trek. Racism, bigotry, human foibles, Why-Are-We-Here. Some are simplistic adventures with no point, others, attempts at complex review of the humanity. None of them could have been believed to have been the real Western Experience without calling into question the thinker’s gullibility. After all, Southern California experience, circa 1860 through 1910 is nothing like Montana or Arizona in the same time span, yet are categorized as the Wild West.

Unless, of course, Richard Maxwell Brown had distilled some fundamental truths, insights into the Human Condition affected by ‘The Times’. 'No Duty to Retreat' appeared to be a scholarly muse of underlying culture and values that would explain the 'Why' things proceeded in the American West the way they did, as opposed to, say, Mexico, Canada, even Australia. Brown, as well as Wallis, though, seem to think that those that might read their books operate under the impression that there is no difference between the old west myths are the true 'Wild West'. This becomes an issue later on.

Though the thrust of this narrative is ‘No Duty to Retreat’, a legal construct that the author contends is a unique American break from traditional British Common Law on self defense, Brown also makes reference to the ‘Civil War of Incorporation’, and gives many examples which he contends supports his argument that an on-going violent struggle began with the push to the West,and that armies of unconventional combatants were fielded under the American interpretation of self-defense, that there was no reasonable expectation of the defendants to remove themselves from the situation, to flee the violence, thus, no Duty to Retreat.

Brown challenges many 'givens' that I have grown up with. I have always been told that the Wild West wasn't really all that wild, that the shoot-outs we are familiar with are famous precisely because they occurred so rarely and when they did, were shocking news. There was something compelling about the stories told, and Dime Novels and Wild West Shows cashed in on whatever that was, and is, so attractive about the life-or-death clashes that occurred under these frontier circumstances. Hollywood and television pushed it further, epic battles of good and evil, a shoot-out once a week on 'Have Gun, Will Travel'. According to Brown, though, the Wild West was very much a Sam Peckinpaw's western, where gunfights were the norm and that hordes of hired gunmen representing either the 'Conservative Incorporation' powers, inflicting the chimera of 'Law and Order' on the populace, or the pastoral forces that longed for open ranges owned by no one in utopian anarchy. No, Brown does not hint at one being better or more moral than the other, practicing value-neutral structure. Apparently the only reason we know of the OK Corral or Billy the Kid is because they conform to the Victor's narrative, of Law-And-Order triumphing over the Lawless. At least, I think that's what Browns alludes to. The author selectively slips into sentences and words that might be very academic, but just reek of Dialectic Materialism. Man is a Robot. We go through the motions. No good nor evil, no better or worse, just inevitable. Brown contends that there were constant clashes between the parties, a roiling unconventional war fought in the streets of the boom towns and open lands, along bare-wire fence lines and deep in the mines. At one point, though, he contends 'We will never know how many lives were lost in the gun battles of the west', or something real close to that. Hold it, if they're not documented, how do you know they occurred? Brown's argument goes from potent claim to irresponsible conjecture in one sentence. He progresses through several historical instances, some I'd never heard of and need to do further research, that culminated into the present, giving a rationale for the violence in our cities.

One instance he dwells on is the Shout-Out at the OK Corral. This, I know something about. Not the shoot-out itself, an incident so larded with folklore that there's no 'truth' to be mined there, but the state of the Arizona Territory. Brown in this instance slips into the very specific political party alignments of the two feuding parties, the Earps and their side staunch Republicans and the powers of Incorporation, the ‘Cowboy’ faction dedicated Democrats, pastoral good-ole-boys, out on the range, stealing cattle. Hey, ever’body was doin’ it. Boys just bein’ boys.

My readings do suggest that lawmen tended to be Republicans in these days, so why not the Earps? But then Brown contends that the Arizona territory was run and controlled by Republicans.

No it wasn’t. Not by a long-shot. Arizona had gone with the Confederacy during the Civil War. The only reason it didn’t secede was because it was a territory not a state. Confederates equals Democrats. Republicans, Unionists, Abolitionists.

After the war, the Republicans in Arizona saw themselves as surrounded by the enemy. The governor was appointed by the President up until 1912 when Arizona became a state, and that usually was a Republican. The legislature, counties and cities were mostly controlled by the Democrats. The reason Arizona was the last territory in the contiguous states to become a state was precisely because, when it did, the Democrats would absolutely gain two Senate seats and at least some representatives in the House, so the Republicans in Washington fought Arizona's statehood. Brown’s argument takes a huge hit.(William Breakenridge, a deputy sheriff in Tombstone at this time in his book contends that Cochise County was 'Heavily Republican' at the time. But then, why was his boss the Sheriff a Democrat. I don't quite know why, but the Sheriff had been appointed by the governor, not elected. But if politics played such a big role in Arizona at the time, why would a Republican governor appoint a Democrat operative to such an important job, unless of course, he felt Baher was the most qualified man for the job, making politics not as important as Brown would have you believe.)

Brown gets us to Bernard Goetz, the Subway Vigilante, who shot five young men that apparently were going to rob him, and Brown points out that instead of fleeing, Goetz 'stood his ground', with no 'Duty to Retreat'. Goetz shot his would-be assailants. The jury acquitted Goetz of everything but illegal possession and carrying of a gun. Brown's asserts that it was the deep-seated belief in No Duty to Retreat that led the jury to come to their conclusion. Brown also references Claude Dallas, one of those cases where I do indeed scratch my head. Dallas shot and killed two game wardens in the back country of Idaho when they caught him with poached game. A jury found Dallas not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. Brown doesn’t mention it, but Dallas stood over one of the wardens, changed out his high-powered weapon to a diminutive .22 revolver, and shot the warden in the head as if he was finishing off a deer he’d hunted down. How the Hell can’t you find this man guilty of murder? Puzzling over this at the time, I spoke to some hunters about it, people that follow the rules and would turn in a poacher in a heart-beat, and most of them seem to be of the opinion that in Idaho, people just hate the game wardens that much, especially the Feds.

Where Brown really loses it for me is when he gets to No Duty to Retreat rearing its value-neutral-but-insert-‘ugly’ head in American foreign policy, dating back to the Mexican American law, that actually pre-dates the legal development of the No Duty to Retreat in American courts, to Viet Nam and Grenada, about the time the book was published. Read the book to appreciate the tortured meanderings that passes as logic, because I can’t even attempt to summarize. I guess Winston Churchill was calling up his ‘inner cowboy’ when he gave his ‘we will fight on the beach’ speech, Stalin going Republican in Stalingrad and Hitler’s ‘No retreat and no surrender’ orders to Von Paulus was evil corporate powers manipulating the Fuhrer from the shadows.

In both 'No Duty to Retreat' and Wallis' 'Billy the Kid', there is an undertone of bitter cynicism and disgust at what would seem to be the Reader. In the course of petulantly presenting his opinion and supporting facts, competition and cooperation become diametrical opposites, and competition become a problematic cultural shortcoming. Apparently America is the only place where the population competes, leading to bloody conflict and oppressive misery all around, whereas the rest of the world lives to some degree or another in blissful cooperation. Then what is that Olympics thing every four years?

But wait, that’s right. All is bitter neutral-talk, acid New Speak, where we are but automatons’ walking through the world, devoid of Humanity, let alone a Human Condition to ponder. All is valueless, and maybe a little snarky.

e-Books related to No Duty to Retreat: Violence and Values in American History and Society