Posted on 07/29/2006 9:24:41 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
Quick — think fast. What do you do when your life is in danger? If someone else is threatening your life, do you have the right to end theirs? You do now. On July 20, the Self-Defense Act was signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm.
The package of bills protects the rights of people using deadly force against an aggressor. In other words, if you kill someone in the act of self defense, you are legally protected.
For law-abiding citizens, this may seem like a sound piece of legislation. In actuality, however, the act has the potential to promote violence.
Although the Self-Defense Act specifically attempts to protect the rights of people who are fighting back in self defense, it doesn't guarantee that people won't also attempt to use the law to protect themselves when resorting to violence when their lives aren't in danger.
The bill allows people to use deadly force without needing to retreat if a person believes they could be physically harmed, killed or raped. This is granted in any situation he or she has a legal right to be in — on the street, in the store or in the classroom, for example.
These guidelines are too vague and leave room for misinterpretation. The act attempts to be an umbrella solution for a large range of situations.
Whether you like it or not, there is a difference between the intentions of a burglar and those of a rapist.
How do we judge in which situations a life is really in danger?
Legal loopholes aside, the legislation seems unnecessary. Even when one's life is in danger, using "deadly force" should be a last resort.
In elementary school, we were taught to be the bigger person and simply walk away when faced with confrontation. With this new act, it seems as if these lessons are thrown out the window. In protecting violence, even against the bad guys, we are doing nothing to stop it. Because each case is unique, each case should be carefully examined and judged accordingly.
The act still raises questions. What prompted this legislation? Is there a large number of self-defense cases resulting in false accusations or undeserved consequences? Since we can't pinpoint the existing problem, it's hard to justify an act that may promote violence.
If, in a situation of self defense, the aggressor is killed, it should be obvious that the other person involved was only doing what was necessary to protect his or her life. There is no need to encourage violence. If there really is no other option, the line between self defense and murder should be pretty clear.
I was never taught that. The authors should watch that 'we!'
(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em Down Hezbullies.)
The problem with this law is how to determine whether your life really is in danger. If someone punches you, and you pull out a gun and kill him, that is excessive force, yet you can claim that you honestly thought your life was in danger (even though you secretly know it wasn't) and get away with murder.
If it were up to the author, we would have to be dead before we had a right to defend ourselves
(snort) -----
In elementary school, I was taught to be the bigger person and simply walk away when faced with confrontation.
At home, I was taught to walk away from a verbal confrontation.
If anyone actually touched me, however, I was taught to summarily kick their ass.
Both of my daughters are being taught the same.
"In elementary school, we were taught to be the bigger person and simply walk away when faced with confrontation."
I learned in Elementary School that if you hit the bigger person up the side of the head with a two-by-four, they will leave you alone....
And you usually only have to do that ONCE.....
You may be right. The key to making sure you don't get shot? Don't attack someone else.
Sometimes people forget that the basis of formal courtesy was an attempt at a set of rules that would allow armed men NOT to kill each other.
Claiming that you believed that the fellow that punched you in the nose was "trying to kill you" so you pulled out your weapon and killed him wouldn't fly with any DA in the nation and any jury would convict your behind faster than you could say "prison be-yotch".
People have been known to die from being punched once. Elderly people can't take much physical punishment. Being hit may not be fatal, but your head hitting something when you fall can be.
If they attack you with OR without a weapon, your life can be in danger. The fact the perp initiated the attack absolves the victim from having to restrain their reaction.
There is no middle ground. No one can make the determination of what is or is not 'excessive force' for another person.
"Whether you like it or not, there is a difference between the intentions of a burlar and a rapist."
Who in the heck can tell a person's intentions? There is no way to know. Burglars sometimes kill their victims to keep from being recognised. Rapists often kill their victims.
The question should be "How do you know know if your burlar is a killer or not?"
Of course, the answer is, "You don't."
Thus, shoot to kill if you are attacked, robbed, etc.
"Turn the other cheek? To that I say a big Bravo Sierra!"
Ditto that. Since when do we need a law that says we have the right to protect ourselves if we are feeling in danger? What a load of crap! Simple rule: If anyone messes with me or any of my loved ones they will get hurt or worse. End of story...basic rule of nature....no law needed.
Simple solution.
Don't punch people.
May be I should have a questionnaire handy...
1.Are here rob me?
2. If you answered yes to question #1, will you be partaking in any other criminal activity, such as pistol-whipping, raping, murdering?
3.If you answered no to question #2, do you promise that there will be no physical harm to me or other occupants?
Yes, than I would be able to make an educated decision on whether my life was truly endangered or not. end of sarcasm
The grabbers always tend to be very vocal and loonie. The media presents them as if they were a very large group, so the effect they have on most bliss ninnies is to scare and sway them.
I have to think the law is written in such a way as to exclude using deadly force except where a "reasonable" argument can be made that you were in danger
This article is badly written for it is not clear when to shoot. Do you shoot for burglary or for the rape? What if its a robbery and a rape? What if the rapist has no weapon but there height, and the burglary has a gun?
Should we all just sing "Just give peace a chance?"
This is like legalizing breathing air. Someone passes a bill "legalizing" something most people know is absolutely right.
Even the Socialist Sewer of Massachusetts has the "Castle Law" regarding deadly force.
"..It shall be a defense that the person was in his home..."
This article was probably written by a college student majoring in English or Journalism at Michigan State University. The people who work at the State News are not very well read, very good writers, very deep thinkers, and not very well acquainted with reality.
Does that law also include the possibility of escape through another doorway in order to remove ones self out of harms way?
But determining 'reasonable' is left up to the victim, as it should be...
As long as everyone is informed that if you harm another person, you may legally die on the spot...Couldn't be a better deterrent...
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.