Posted on 09/19/2011 5:47:00 AM PDT by marktwain
On the subject of self defense, New Hampshire is about to enter a new era in which citizens have broader authority to make their own decisions.
On Wednesday, the House overrode Gov. John Lynch’s veto of Senate Bill 88. The Senate had overridden the veto the week before. The bill changes state weapons laws in four important ways.
1. It removes the mere display of a weapon from the state’s definition of what constitutes the use of “deadly force.”
2. It removes the mandatory prison sentence for felonies committed while in possession of or using or attempting to use a firearm.
3. It holds immune from civil suits (but not criminal prosecution) people who use force to defend themselves or someone else.
4. It allows the use of deadly force anywhere one has the legal right to be, not just in one’s home or on one’s own property.
The first two provisions stemmed from the 2009 conviction of Moultonborough farmer Ward Bird, who displayed a handgun and yelled at a woman who came onto his property after he told her not to. The woman claimed Bird pointed the gun toward her; Bird said he did not, but merely held it in his hand. He was convicted of felony criminal threatening, but last year had his sentence commuted after people in his community waged a campaign to have him freed.
Those first two changes in SB 88 are needed to prevent innocent people from being locked up for actions that pose no harm to anyone. Standing on one’s porch or yard while holding a firearm, something very common in this rural state, should not get one thrown in jail.
The third change prevents frivolous lawsuits against people who are justified in using force to protect themselves or others.
The fourth is the controversial one. Current law states that deadly force is not justified if one knows that either party to a confrontation can safely retreat. An exception is made for people who are in their own homes or property. SB 88 expands that exception to “anywhere he or she has a right to be.”
Gov. Lynch says the bill “would compromise safety by emboldening gangs and criminal activity.” It’s hard to see how that would be the case.
The law does not grant blanket immunity for any shooting.
It states that if you are somewhere you are legally entitled to be, you don’t have to attempt to retreat, or let a person who is threatening your life retreat, before using deadly force to protect yourself.
If Gov. Lynch is right, and unjustified killings increase after this law takes effect, then obviously this provision should be revisited.
But we share the Legislature’s doubt that the law will unleash a rash of criminality in the state.
I’m in favor of this law, of course, but find it curious that several things come to mind as I read the scenarios concerning the fourth clause.
A man and a woman are on a date. He is quite ardent and forward, but not overtly threatening. Yet the woman has been raped before, and is afraid where this might lead, “afraid for her life.” At what point would she be justified in blowing him away?
A man walking down the street after dark in a questionable part of the city notes three questionable men who appear not to know each other, yet who are positioned around the street in a classic set up for an ambush. The man ahead of him on his side of the street, who has been walking towards him along the sidewalk, approaches. At what point is he justified, if he isn’t required to retreat, to assume the man coming towards him represents a threat to his life that requires a display of the weapon, or worse?
Not saying who, on either side, is prudent to put themselves in these positions in the first place - just wondering about the practical aspects of the legalities.
It all comes down to the “reasonable person” standard. In the end, a jury of your peers looks at the evidence and decides if you were, knowing what you knew, and in the situation that you were in, in reasonable fear of your life or bodily integrity. There are usually some specific crimes that are deemed to be reasonable to use deadly force to prevent, such as rape, kidnapping, or armed robbery.
You may avoid the entire trial and jury if the evidence is so clear that the investigating officers or prosecutor deems that it was reasonable on its face, assuming, of course, that the officers and prosecutor are reasonable themselves.
I'd stop, put my back to a wall and wait. If the approaching man passes by, all well and good. If he stalls or slows down, time to put a hand on "ole Betsy" and be prepared to draw and fire (one movement) - same for his pals who are positioned. At some point, someone HAS to make a move and that will tell you whether to open fire.
I've had situations where punks walked four-abreast down a sidewalk figuring they'd force me to step aside. I just stopped dead in my tracks. After a few seconds of confused eye-darting, they parted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.