State v. Mann: Trial 1

  This is the religious argument defending Mann in the State v. Mann case. This case pertains to Mann shooting a rented slave name Lydia. He was required to pay a 10 dollar fine to her own for her injury. His case won increased rights for slaves while only a small victory it goes a long way to win humanity for black Americans.

From a Judeo-Christian perspective Mr. Mann should be fully absolved of his fine. The fine far exceeds what is reasonable for damages under the circumstances. Article 1 tells us that only authority in this world are those that God has allowed. Article 1 specifically says in Roman 13:1-2, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” God therefore had allowed John Mann to be in charge and she disobeyed him. Slavery is an institution allowed and even encourage by God and he has put people in their own places. Article 1 instruct slaves to be trust worthy before their master. The direct quote from Article I , “Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience (Romans 13:5).” Running is being untrustworthy. How as a borrower can I trust that she would not flee again and then be held liable for her loss. She is not my property so If I lose her I would have to pay her full value back to my lender. 

The vary reason I would rent slaves is that my defedendant cannot afford them to purchase them and would you gouge a poor man. Article 2 says, “If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you. Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they may continue to live among you (Leviticus 25:35-36).” The promises that if we continue to take care of each other then we will bring glory to God. The Defendant as of late have declared bankruptcy and this slave rental could have set Mr. Mann back on my feet. Being a planter he needs laborers to care for the field and aid him in picking his crops.  He is trying to start an honest life for himself after some criminal behavior. Your client must understand that this is a difficult season. 

The situation occurred as Lydia proceed to run the defendant causing him to draw his weapon and fire upon the slave. He rendered her unable to run and did not proceed firing. In article 3 we find this aligns with the Biblical principle found in Exodus 21:20-21,  “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.”  The verse tells us that when a master has some restraint then he should not be charged. My client did practice restrain choosing not to shoot the slave dead and only rendered he injured  Since he did not render her dead then he should not be punished. She was treated and left alive. Therefore the defendant can’t be held responsible.

In Article 5 “If a bull gores someone to death, it is to be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but its owner is not to be punished. But if the bull had been in the habit of attacking people and its owner had been warned, but did not keep it penned up—then if it gores someone to death, it is to be stoned, and its owner is to be put to death also.” This passage would implicate the prosecution and not my client. If the prosecution has knowledge of her propensity to run then he is at fault here. We will assume that is not true but it is further proof that Lydia was treated kindly.

Intotal the prosecution's fee of $10 for injury sustained to Lydia is absurd. There is no moral claim to this poor planter's money. He should be absolved of all crimes and have his $10 returned to him.