Running Head: Criminal Law
Title
Institution Affiliation
Name
Running Head: Criminal Law
Focusing on the conceptualization of actus reus and mens rea,

Describe whether the court acted justly and/or legally in the acquittal of Rodney Peairs.

Justify your personal opinions by referencing legal concepts or by building on theories
outlined in the text.
The court freed Rodney Peairs, a local meat market manager from a criminal charge against
him. Rodney Peairs was charged with shooting a 16-year-old Japanese exchange student,
Yoshihiro Hattori. It took a 12-member jury three hours to acquit the 31-year old Rodney Peairs.
The court found the evidence presented by Mr. Rodney Peairs’ defense quite substantial to rule in
his favor. Mr. Hattori's father, Masaichi, attended all seven days of the trial but felt the courts
verdict was incredible and that the jury failed to act legally. In contrast, the evidence presented to
the jury necessitates Rodney Peairs’ acquittal. Before the ruling, Mr. Hattori, with his wife, Mieko
had petitioned seeking revoking of all the handguns in American homes. They launched a drive to
collect 1.6 million signatures for the push. He marshalled support from the American people for
tighter control of weapons to curb such menace that happened to his son.
The 12-member jury was justified to make such a ruling. In his defense, Mr. Peairs's
lawyer, Lewis Unglesby pointed out that Rodney Peairs acted within the law by answering the
door call with a gun in his house. He went on to insist that Rodney Peairs was enjoying his legal
by doing so. At this point, Lewis Unglesby depicted Mr. Rodney Peairs’ as a victim of events.
According to the law, this validates the decision by the 12-member jury to make the verdict.
In my opinion, Rodney Peairs acted reasonably- a man's home is his castle and should be
free from intruders. Mr. Lewis Unglesby made it clear before the jury that even though Yoshihiro
Running Head: Criminal Law
Hattori was an innocent man, though he was an intruder. He pointed out that Hattori was looking
for a Halloween party in the Baton Rough where Rodney Peairs happens to live. In my opinion,
any homeowner would have opted to use the gun in the same manner in his defense when
frightened. For this reason, the jury’s ruling in favor of Rodney Peairs was just. This is because he
used the gun for his defense and in accordance with the law. Shooting Yoshihiro Hattori was
justifiable homicide under Louisiana's 1976 "shoot-the-burglar". The law gives the house owner
the mandate to kill an intruder who might use violence against them. Yoshihiro Hattori had
frightened Rodney Peairs’ wife.
References

Carter, G. (2012). Guns in American society an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture,
and the law. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO.

Carmen, R. & Walker, J. (2014). Briefs of Leading Cases in Law Enforcement. Hoboken:
Taylor and Francis.

Ross, D. (2014). Civil Liability in Criminal Justice. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.
Examine and analyze the various ways police use of force has been litigated and controlled.
You will select one court case from the list below and examine the ways the court attempted
to place constraints on the police use of physical force when confronting citizens.
Graham v. Connor (1989) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court
limited the use of excessive power by the police. There ought to be an objective reasonableness
standard that each officer should apply when handling a civilian's claim in the course of duty
whether in the making of an arrest, investigating a person. Every police officer should understand
Running Head: Criminal Law
the findings from Graham v. Connor to ensure he doesn’t break it while making decisions and
using his powers.
According to Graham v. Connor (1989), an officer is bound by law to apply his powers in
an objective manner based circumstances he finds himself in. The factors to consider are the
uniqueness of the situation and the threat the law enforcement officer and others face at the scene.
In his case, Graham was mistreated by officers and his constitutional rights infringed. In reality,
he had done nothing wrong at the convenience store to necessitate the kind of treatment he received
from the officers. In his encounter, he sustained a broken foot, his forehead, wrist and shoulder
were hurt.
After the encounter, his case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court after which the
rulings were documented as Graham v. Connor law in 1989. It is, therefore, the mandate of each
law enforcement officer to avoid violating someone’s rights at any incident. In the event that a
citizen’s right is infringed, they should seek legal counsel and sue that any law enforcement officer
who misuse their power just like Graham. He sought the law to help him recover damages he
incurred and the injuries he sustained when the police assaulted him. A majority from a divided
panel of the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Graham. They ruled that the police had used
excessive force leaving Graham’s foot broken, his wrists forehead and shoulder injured. The law
restricts law enforcement officers from applying excessive force and causing harm to citizens.
In conclusion, The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from police officers who misuse
their power to cause harm to them during arrest. As seen in Graham’s U.S. Supreme Court case
“whether the force used to effect to a particular seizure is ‘reasonable’… requires a careful
Running Head: Criminal Law
balancing of the ‘nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment
interests’ against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.” 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989)
References

May, D. (2008). Reasonable use of force by police : seizures, firearms, and high-speed
chases. New York: P. Lang.

Hicks, W. (2007). Police Vehicular Pursuits Constitutionality, Liability and Negligence.
Springfield: Charles C Thomas Publisher, LTD.

Gaines, L. & Kappeler, V. (2014). Policing in America. Amsterdam: Anderson.