State v Mann Reaction

Both sides on the State v Mann case made great points in why John Mann should be guilty and why he shouldn't. A big point that stuck out to me was that the slave that John Mann had rented named Lydia from Elizabeth Jones so Lydia was not his property originally. John Mann did not originally own these slaves so, the question can be raised whether or not it was in his rights to shoot her and also critically wound her. The other team arguing in favor of John Mann saying that Elizabeth Jones who owned Lydia could have given him the right to shoot her if she disobeyed orders which technically she did. The opposing team also made a good argument in that she took a risk trying to escape and so he was in his rights to shoot her since she "disobeyed" her masters orders. The opposing team also said that John Mann was in his rights in his position in society that he was above her and had control. that One point that had really stuck out to me was from the side of North Carolina in that John Mann committed not just a crime of shooting someone but this crime could categorized and labeled as assault and battery charges. I never even thought about it from this perspective but I have to say this is a very unique way of putting this crime and also a very true way. Another great way that the states perspective was well said included the use of the 10 commandments. The 10 commandments promote peace and non-violence and the fact that John Mann shot Lydia doesn't well represent these 10 commandments and he does not embody these commandments. I would also say that the State brought up the fact that if slavery is allowed then their health should be more closely watched and taken care of. They are also people and they should not be just beaten and abused. I would say that all of these points brought up by both sides were very well said and communicated.