Rebuttal Rebmasel

(WATCH THIS EPISODE ON YOUTUBE) Since Biblical times, self defense has been simple. Guard your castle. Retreat to the wall. Defend yourself. The U.S. stole its common law from the English, and the elements of self defense didn't change. Until.......Florida.
Why did Florida change its slogan from the Sunshine State to the Kill At Will State? Aren't Stand Your Ground Laws a good thing? How old is the Castle Doctrine? Whose castle is it anyway? Reb lowers the drawbridge on the madness and teaches you all the wheres and whens and hows on who is really allowed to "defend" themselves.
**CONTENT WARNING** Racial violence and violence against women and children.
0:00 - Content Warning
2:24 - Intro
8:08 - Trayvon Martin/Michael Brown/Tamir Rice
10:07 - Philando Castile
15:00 - People v. White (2010)
26:16 - Duty to Retreat
30:05 - The Castle Doctrine
30:45 - Beard v. United States (1895)
31:10 - People v. Tomlins (1914)
34:15 - Background on SYG Laws
36:00 - Self-defense elements/Duty to retreat
43:45 - SYG Laws and Imminence
46:27 - Removing Imminence > Race/Gender/DV
52:53 - Bernard Goetz (1986)
56:20 - Kathy & James Workman (Fla. 2004)
58:41 - The NRA & SYG
59:30 - Jimmy Morningstar (2003)
1:04:30 - Charles Harper (2009)
1:06:00 - Pedro Roteta (2011)
1:10:13 - Duty to retreat
1:11:10 - Domestic Violence & The Castle Doctrine
1:20:17 - Deven Grey (2017) / Brittany Joyce Smith (2018)
1:22:03 - Collected cases of men using SYG Laws successfully
1:23:41 - Peggy Stewart Case (1988)
1:31:18 - Kansas Supreme Court is on my sh*t list
1:32:00 - "Reasonableness" for a woman
1:33:50 - Collected cases on DV victims and Castle Doctrine/SYG
1:47:00 - Castle Doctrine clashes with Knock + Announce Rule
1:48:32 - Breonna Taylor
***
DONATE
https://www.trayvonmartinfoundation.org/
https://michaelodbrown.org/
https://www.tamirericefoundation.org/donate
https://www.philandocastilefoundation.org/
https://www.gofundme.com/f/freedom-and-reentry-fund-for-deven-grey
https://justiceforbreonna.org/

***
COMPLETE SOURCE LIST IN YOUTUBE EPISODE NOTES
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

(WATCH THIS EPISODE ON YOUTUBE) Humans have been digging moats, slingshotting arrows, poisoning food, and laying spikes for thousands of years — and modern day booby traps are still alive and well. But what do an Indiana Jones-inspired hot tub contraption and a haunted house’s 20-gauge shotgun have in common? Vengeance.
This episode starts the engine for Episode 24’s deep dive into self-defense, "Stand Your Ground" laws, defense of property, and the Castle Doctrine. But first, listen to Reb pick tibia bones and shotgun pellets off the floor in Katko v. Briney (1971).
***
Follow @RebuttalPod on Instagram and Twitter!
Follow @Rebmasel on TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter!
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

(WATCH THIS EPISODE ON YOUTUBE) There are 3 reasons one of the most important 4th Amendment rules in America exists as it does today: (1) Boxers in the criminal underworld, (2) A bomb in the house of famous boxing promoter Don King, and (3) Dollree "Dolly" Mapp - The young black woman who dated bad boys and stood up to an all-white police force in Baltimore...and won.
What started as a mobster/boxer gambling ring turned into a 4-year battle over...you guessed it...nude magazines. Come with Reb to throw some punches and start a Dolly fan club in Mapp v. Ohio (1961).
INTRO/CONTEXT: 0:00-7:29
CASE BEGINS: 7:30
***
Sources Cited:

Ken Armstrong, “Dollree Mapp, 1923-2014: “The Rosa Parks of the Fourth Amendment,” The Marshall Project (Dec. 8, 2014) https://www.themarshallproject.org/2014/12/08/dollree-mapp-1923-2014-the-rosa-parks-of-the-fourth-amendment


Carolyn N. Long, “Mapp v. Ohio: Guarding Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures” (2006)

ClevelandMemory.Org, “Mapp v. Ohio - 367 U.S. 643 (1961), https://www.clevelandmemory.org/legallandmarks/mapp/decision.html



Follow @RebuttalPod on Instagram and Twitter!
Follow @Rebmasel on TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter!
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

(WATCH THIS EPISODE ON YOUTUBE) We protect the witnesses from the public, but who protects the public from the witnesses? Peek behind the curtain of the Witness Protection Program and prepare to be shocked, afraid, and bamboozled. Take cover with Reb and start questioning everything and everyone in United States v. Wilson (1981).
**CONTENT WARNING at 58:52 for violence against children**
***
SOURCES [chronological order by reference or cite]:


United States v. Wilson (1981)


Secord v. Schlachter (1983)

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP09S00048R000100020104-6.pdf

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59212-2004Jun21_4.html

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP90-00552R000605840009-1.pdf

https://www.copvcia.com/free/ciadrugs/Ed_Wilson_1.html

Karen S. Cooperstein, Enforcing Judgments Against Participants in the Witness Protection Program, 36 Stan. L. Rev. 1017 (1984)

Michal Gilad, Who Will Protect The Children?: The Untold Story of Unaccompanied Minors In Witness Protection Programs, 12 Whittier J. Child & Fam. Advoc. 43 (2012)

Raneta Lawson Mack, The Federal Witness Protection Program Revisited and Compared: Reshaping An Old Weapon To Meet New Challenges in the Global Crime Fighting Effort, U. Miami Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 191 (2014).

Tanya Asim Cooper, Sacrificing the Child To Convict The Defendant: The Secondary Traumatization of Child Witnesses By Prosecutors, Their Inherent Conflict of Interest, and the Need For Child Witness Counsel, 9 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol'y & Ethics J. 239 (2011)

Laura Perry, What's In A Name?, 46 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1563 (2009)

https://www.baltimoresun.com/2003/04/26/youth-is-found-fatally-shot-after-being-called-as-witness/

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigations/2017/10/31/witness-protection-program-who-protects-public/748986001/


Follow @RebuttalPod on Instagram and Twitter!
Follow @Rebmasel on TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter!
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

(WATCH THIS EPISODE ON YOUTUBE) Most people would like to keep their heads. Thomas Donaldson isn't one of them. This mathematician and computer scientist wanted his cut off, and he wanted it to be done while he was still alive.
Bring a warm jacket and follow Reb into the frozen head refrigerator for Donaldson v. Lungren (1992).

INTRO/REB CHAT: 0:00-19:32
CASE STARTS: 19:32

***
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

(WATCH THIS EPISODE ON YOUTUBE) Breathing through chemical smoke has been described as “drowning on dry land.” When one imagines chemical warfare, they often imagine a striking image of filthy soldiers choking in trenches on the frontlines through thick fogs of yellow-green gas. 
In 1993, the Convention on Chemical Weapons sought to end chemical warfare as we know it.
20 years later, the international treaty the U.S. signed in 1997 to ban and stop the creation, sale, and export of chemical weapons for warfare around the globe led us to an unusual suspect in an unusual place—Carol Anne Bond, a 34-year old microbiologist living with her husband in the suburbs of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 
Carol Anne Bond was not a soldier.  She was not welding steel cylinders of chlorine gas to be released over trenches in Belgium. She was not spraying 19.3 million gallons of chemical herbicides over Vietnam. She was not using white phosphorus against civilians in Fallujah or Syria. She was not a guerrilla fighter on the front lines, a terrorist, or a military contractor.  She was an angry wife.
Hold your breath and wash your hands. This is Bond v. United States (2014).
***
Follow @RebuttalPod on Instagram and @Rebmasel on TikTok :)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices