State v. Mann
John Mann was charged for shooting a slave woman named Lydia who wasn't his property, but she was on loan to him. He was charged with assault and fined $10. Lydia survived this shooting and she went back to her owner, but the case was not finished. John Mann said that he could do whatever he wants with his property and that he deserves his $10 back. The state claims that since it was not fully his property and the person who owned Lydia would have economic fallout because of this shooting that Mann was not allowed to shoot a slave he didn't fully own. Mann's argument rooted from law and from religion saying that the Lord was alright with slavery quoting a bible verse that talks about slaves and masters. They argued from law saying that a slaved that is loaned is still a slave with no rights. The reasoning on the side of Mann is not was adequate as that of the state. The one great point on the side of Mann was that technically Lydia was running away so shooting her in the back and not killing her was well within his rights to shoot her, but still it stands that there is more harm than good coming from this act. The owner is hurt by this. A slave at the time normally cost $250 and John Mann could have punished her in any other way. So he should at least pay the fine. The court did not see it this way because Mann's team focused legally and found that he should be refunded his $10 and not charged.
I think that in that time this decision made sense to everyone at the time, but sadly the only way to compare it to todays world would be renting a car because you are the acting owner of the car and are liable for all damages towards it, but since he was the acting owner of Lydia he is allowed to shoot her when she attempts to run away. So in this case the law was sadly in Manns favor.
Comments
Post a Comment