Posted on 05/31/2006 6:10:01 AM PDT by holymoly
Senate likely to pass bill allowing citizens to shoot when threatened
Picture this: A homeless man comes up to you and in a demanding voice asks for money. You have no knowledge if he is armed, and he says nothing to suggest he is. Still, you feel threatened. You are carrying a pistol legally because of the state’s concealed weapon law. You pull it out and shoot him.
After an investigation, police determine that you acted legally — not in self-defense against someone threatening to cause you bodily harm, but simply because you felt threatened.
Sound like a farfetched scenario? Not if the state Legislature approves a new law already enacted in 10 other states.
The state Senate may soon give citizens the right to shoot first and ask questions later when it votes on a bill as early as this week that would give Michigan citizens the right to use deadly force if they feel threatened, whether it be at home, in their car or on the street.
As it stands now, those who feel they are in danger have a “duty to retreat” before they can legally use force. The legislation would repeal that obligation, allowing a person to “stand his or her ground” in self-defense.
That concerns Lansing police Chief Mark Alley, who says that right could be taken too far. “What worries me are the cases that may or may not happen like a panhandler asking for money who is verbally aggressive,” Alley says. “I would certainly hate to see that end with deadly force.”
State Rep. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, who introduced the bill in the House last year, says he is confident the bill — which opponents have dubbed “Shoot First,” “License to Murder” and “Make my Day,” among other dubious monikers — will pass the Senate.
Jones says people’s right to protect themselves should extend beyond the home. “Is your life worth less outside your home?” Jones says. “If a woman was walking through an alley, she should be able to pick up a rock and defend herself. I look at this as a victims’ rights bill, and I have a deep belief in this.”
But Carolynne Jarvis, executive director of Michigan Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence: On Target Coalition, says the bill goes far beyond a person’s right to protect himself. “People don’t understand the impact it will have on society over time,” Jarvis says. “Instead of solving problems, we are going to empower people to shoot first.” “There’s the belief that an armed society is a polite society,” Jarvis says. “I believe that an armed society is actually an intimidated society. The question is, is this what we want for Michigan?”
The bill is part of a nationwide effort by the National Rifle Association to repeal similar duty to retreat laws. The NRA has already been successful with measures in Georgia, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Dakota, Arizona, Kansas, Idaho, Indiana and Florida.
“The NRA looks at it as a freedom that’s given to people that should be,” says Thomas Butler, chairman of Friends of the NRA, a foundation that supports the pro-gun lobbying group. The NRA “believes that the Second Amendment should be defended at all costs,” Butler says. “We’re not talking about shoot-em-up cowboys. We’re just talking about defending ourselves.”
However, the law already gives citizens the right to protect themselves, says Shikha Hamilton, state president of the Million Mom March chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Additional measures would just be overkill, Hamilton says.
“There’s no crisis going on,” Hamilton says. “Not one person has explained the need for this law other than the NRA pushing for it. Other than that, there is no basis for it.”
Opponents of the bill cite a litany of concerns, including a potential increase in gang violence, the taking of authority out of the hands of police officials and into the hands of citizens, and the safety of innocent bystanders. But Jones, a 34-year veteran of law enforcement, says there is no cause for alarm.
“This legislation isn’t going to change anything, it won’t make us more violent,” Jones said. “Part of this legislation says that you must have a reasonable belief that you are in imminent danger of death, great bodily harm or rape.”
If the Senate passes the bill, it will go to the desk of Gov. Jennifer Granholm for final approval. “The smartest thing Granholm can do is be outspoken on why this legislation does not make sense for Michigan,” Jarvis says. “I hope she won’t sign, but I don’t know what her intentions are. We certainly hope she would veto if it came to her.”
The governor’s press secretary, Liz Boyd, did not return a message left for her Tuesday.
“There’s no sense in a veto for it,” says Yvonne Joseph, who works at Classic Arms Co. on Lansing's north side. “It’s only common sense, and we now have a concealed weapon law that says you can legally carry firearms without fear of litigation. That’s what the whole thing is in a nutshell.”
If anyone walked into the store, which her mother owns, and seriously threatened her coworkers or customers, Joseph says she wouldn’t think twice about shooting him.
But even with a gun strapped to her chest and racks of other guns lining the walls at the gun shop, Joseph acknowledges there are “pros and cons to both sides.”
“Nobody should be shooting at anybody,” Joseph says, “but nobody should be doing a lot of things in this culture.”
And of all the (10?) States which have passed "Stand your ground"/"Castle doctrine" laws, Caitlin cannot provide a single example of something like this actually happening. All she can provide us with a hypothetical scenario. rather than the criminal/attacker?
Nothing like impartial reporting, Caitlin.
rather than the criminal/attacker? = Bad editing, shouldn't be there.
You read my mind.
There aren't any homeless people around where I live so it's unlikely I'll be confronted with the situation.
It's a Bill of Rights. Not a bill of neeeeeeds.
How about this scenario, Caitlyn. You are walking in some God-forsaken part of Detroit on assignment. You are attacked by a crazed homeless person who tries to strangle you. A by-stander with a license to carry shoots the attacker and saves your life. How do you feel about that carry law now, Caitlyn? I'll bet the latter situation is much more likely to occur than the one you presented in your biased, anti-gun report.
Absolute BS, a classic straw dog.
Shooting the bum who accosted you in a threatining manner would be bad because?
This sounds more like a advertisement to SUPPORT the new law than a reason to be against it.
Very few people want to put up with aggressive homeless, and a little fear and respect from them is reason alone to pass this.
One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.
Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. [This is an American right repeatedly recognized in Supreme Court gun cases.]
Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.
Since then, the thug comes over to my house several times a day, peeking in the windows, muttering threats, making obscene gestures, etc. This guy is twice my size, easy. I'm home alone with a toddler all day. The police will not do a damn thing.
My realtor was over last night. In the hour he was here (one stinking hour!) he watched close to a dozen deals go down in our driveway. I'd love for Mark Alley to spend just 24 hours being me. He wouldn't come away being so damned pantywaisted about this proposed law, that's for sure.
/rant
OK - you don't have your handgun with you (because maybe you're going into a Post office for example), so you instead beat him sensless and perhaps he dies - would that be OK?
I mean as long as he's not killed by a gun......
I grew up on the lower Eastside of Detroit. We ALWAYS had a shoot first policy...trust Mikey on this one.
In fact, people like Caitlin make me feel "threatened"...
Dunno.. scratching my head over that one as well. One less goblin in the world. BFD...
Your kids are too ill controlled to understand the words "do not touch?" You have three choices
Several decades ago, my great aunt and uncle (both since deceased) who were in their '70s at the time had a problem similar to yours - bums/squatters living nearby. Even back then the police would do nothing (which is all police ever do unless you fail to wear your seatbelt). The problem went away when one of the squatters came in their house an demanded money and got a 30-06 round in the chest instead. (It was my great aunt who shot him)
The only thing I could come up with is that bums are to liberals like cows are to Indians
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.