What about something like this:
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.”
I have been doing all that you have suggested, and I have had literally years of training now. The duplex next door has done nothing but attract drug dealers, crack addicts and prostitutes for the past 8-10 years. I'm on a first name basis with the Special Ops lieutenant and the captain of Lansing's North Precinct. The captain has tried to help as much as he can, but he's pragmatic about the amount of money and manpower he has to work with. The lieu--everyone thinks this guy is a hero. I am slowly becoming convinced that he is, pardon me, nothing but an assclown. He seemed to take my recent call about the thug very seriously, even parked on the block to monitor the drug traffic...for two hours, 9am to just past 11am, last Friday. (Yeah, that is definitely the time of day when drug traffic is at its peak.) That afternoon, he called the new landlady of the property in question--who is taking this seriously--and told her I was getting hysterical over nothing. He didn't see any deals. She was furious. At least we have a drop-dead eviction date, and a good chance at getting that moved up. In this 'hood, we have a lot better luck with the city atty than the police.
I was thinking of the future. You've hopefully solved one problem, but no guarantees that you will never have another in the future. When I moved to my current location (~30 years ago) very low crime outside the immediate Atlanta city limits. Now with the Mexican invasion, home invasion robberies are common in the Atlanta suburbs (I guess if you're willing to invade the USA, then invading someone's home isn't all that big a next step)
I like that one Occupied, can you tell us another fun story? Pleeeeeaaaaasssse....
Once we're out of here, gun ownership isn't a maybe, it's a definite, if for no other reason than we'll want the boys to be hunters. The two oldest are already pretty good archers. Right now, selling our house is the priority, 100% of our focus. Everything else is on standby.
"Stand your ground" is actually law.
This is more about TORT REFORM!
This cuts off the ambulance chasing of the gun grabbers who file suits as a means of intimidation agains gun rights. (and pursue insurance claims)
This stops the Handgun control inc by disarming them by taking away their lawyers.
THIS IS GOOD TORT REFORM.
Doing that in Texas at night is deadly for the perp....move to Texas, there is plenty of room.....for now. The illegals are flooding in.....
That is the one with the happiest ending.
four it disarms anti 2nd amendment groups by taking away their lawyers. (tort reform)
I took a concealed carry course a while ago and they gave the average legal fees we should expect if we shot someone even LEGALLY. I believe it was about $250,000. If you shoot someone you will be sued, whether or not it was justified. Something tells me people won't be shooting others just for the fun of it.
What about something like this:
Actually, it depends on the firearm and whos' teaching.
For a woman and/or someone of dimunitive stature, a 20 gauge pump shotgun might fit the ticket. Get some #3 buck shot and a trigger lock at a Meijers store, and you're good to go.
In which case, with or without the law, you WILL be convicted and you WILL go to jail. We have this law in Florida, as others have pointed out. Under stand-your-ground, outside the home the same criteria for justified lethal self defense still apply as they always applied. The only difference is the removal of "duty to retreat", which is a tactically and morally assinine requirement.
Call the Chief and ask if this LT is related to the dealer. 11:00 AM, who the hell does he think he's fooling?
Indeed they are. Why do you think that when dueling was legal that people were generally more polite (at least to your face)?
New guns come with a free trigger lock.
Thank you, NRA. I hope you're a member.
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.