The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so: and his right to do so is guaranteed by the Constitution.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Everybody certainly has the right to defend themselves. That's not to say that they should defy common sense by avoiding or diffusing confrontation. And that's very, very important.
Everybody has a right to be defended, and every lawyer has a duty to defend people accused. And my office is to defend him, to discuss the accusation point by point, as I think this is a normal step in a democracy.
The role of the defense is to be an advocate for their client, regardless of whether he did it or not, within the bounds of the law.
Those who deny the right of a jury to protect an individual in resisting an unjust law of the government, deny him all defence whatsoever against oppression.
Believing a person deserves a defence is not the same as doing anything in your power to get him off scot-free.
I believe in the right to defend yourself.
Every state has not only the right but the duty to make adequate provision for its own defense in the way it thinks best, providing it does not do so at the expense of any other state.
The need for self-defense naturally exists outside and inside the home, I would hold the 2nd Amendment applies outside the home.
I am still not at all in favour of offering any defence. Even if the court had accepted that petition submitted by some of my co-accused regarding defence, etc., I would not have defended myself.
I mean to defend the rights of individuals in a liberal prospect.
No opposing quotes found.