State V Mann

 In the case of State v. Man, it was perfectly acceptable for John Mann to shoot his slave in the back. It is evident in the law that this action is allowed and was her fault by fault for running away. Multiple laws say that this action was justified. 

The most obvious thing is that enslaved people were property to the owners. The owner has total power over what the enslaved people can and cannot do. This means the owner can also treat and discipline the enslaved person in any way he may seem fitting. We have slave codes that say they may not travel without permission and also clearly define that enslaved people are an owner's property. 

Mr. Mann's slave tried to run away which is considered traveling without permission, and we just made clear that it was against the slave code to do so. Therefore, he took reasonable action to stop this crime from being committed and did no wrong in doing so.

This enslaved person was also full of anger when trying to run away. She was desperate, angry, and there was no telling what she would've done if she could leave. She had no money and nowhere to go therefore.  She could've robbed people for money, assaulted them, or murdered them. You could argue that John Mann was doing more good by 

shooting her than letting her go because she may have harmed others. Many punishments allow lashes or torture, but death is ultimately acceptible when a threat is evident. And that's what was happening. If he let her run,if he did nothing, other enslaved people would have done it too, leading them to let loose wild in a town that now would be extremely dangerous. For these reasons, you can now see that it was highly acceptable for a man to shoot his slave. 

https://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/slavesfree/slavesfree.html

https://www.ncpedia.org/slave-codes