Legal Question in Constitutional Law in Florida

Bills of Attainder by States

While changing classes in a public school my grandson was assaulted and battered. He exercised his inherent right of self defense and got the better of the matter. By Law and by Statute a person has the right to Self Defense. He refused to sign a statement by a school administrator admitting any culpability. Further, he is fourteen and does not have a contract with the State nor the County. He has been arraigned twice and now has to go to court. Zero tolerance. Public Defender...worthless, State Rep....worthless, States Attorney Secretary....Officious and Impolite. Chisholm v. Georgia,(John Jay) we the people are Joint Tenants in this Govt. No witnesses to the above except students...the perp. of the assault and battery pled guilty at first arraignment. Due Process...forget it. Is it a Bill of Attainder to allow one age group (adults) the right of self defense yet find another, (juvenile0 does not have the same right?? This is a ridiculous situation...my grandson has no record, no drugs, no booze, no nothing...he tries to be a student and is good at it. States Attorney advertises, 'duty to protect the innocent and convict the lawbreakers.' Have all our laws been dismembered and now, just a dream. Thanks, A Grandfather.


Asked on 6/05/06, 1:55 pm

1 Answer from Attorneys

Edward Hoffman Law Offices of Edward A. Hoffman

Re: Bills of Attainder by States

A bill of attainder is a law passed in order to disadvantage a particular person. If your state passed a law which doubled your taxes while leaving everyone else's at present levels, that would be a bill of attainder.

Treating adults and minors differently is another matter entirely, and is proper as long as there is good reason for it. We don't let minors drive, drink, vote, etc., and there is no constitutional defect in such regulations.

I'm not sure that your grandson's situation has anything to do with his age, though. The right to self defense is a limited one, and being attacked does not give the target license to do whatever he wants to the attacker. One is allowed to use enough force to defend against the attack but no more than reasonably seemed necessary at the time. My sense is that your grandson crossed the line and that this is why he is being charged.

You may remember the 1984 case of Bernard Goetz, the so-called "subway vigilante" who shot several men who were apparently about to rob him on a New York subway train. No one questioned his right to defend himself, but it seemed quite unreasonable to actually shoot people under the circumstances and he was charged with assault and attempted murder. He was later acquitted on these charges, but the principle is the same as in your grandson's case.

Read more
Answered on 6/05/06, 2:19 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More Constitutional Law questions and answers in Florida