PDA

View Full Version : Editorial: Fatal Error


Knimrod
05-20-2006, 12:23 AM
Fatal Error
State senate should shun shoot-first bills
May 19, 2006
Detroit Free Press

The state Senate Judiciary Committee ignored the voice of prosecutors, and reason, and approved a package of bills that would essentially sanction fatal shootings of intruders into homes or occupied vehicles.

These bills are not only dangerous but unnecessary. Courts have already given broad latitude to people defending themselves in their homes or vehicles. Citizens legally possessing a gun have the right to self-defense, including the use of deadly force, if they have an honest and reasonable belief that they're in danger of death, serious injury or sexual assault. That right is maintained even if the belief turns out to be wrong.

But exempting fatal shootings from prosecution and even civil actions is unreasonable. Prosecutors must be able to examine fatal shootings on a case-by-case basis. Shooting a mentally ill homeless woman who's banging on a window and attempting to enter a car, for example, is different than shooting an armed burglar breaking into a home. They ought to be judged differently, too.

Equally troubling, the bills could increase violence by fostering a shoot-first-and-answer-no-questions-later attitude. They could, at least potentially, provide a legal shield for murder if shooters invited the victims to their homes, shot them and then claimed the victims were illegally trying to enter.

These bills obviously have emotional support, but their proponents have failed to provide any hard evidence that they're necessary to protect the public.

Laws should discourage, not encourage, violent confrontations, Ronald Frantz, president of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, has said. This week he told legislators that "it's bad public policy to say deadly force can't be scrutinized."

State senators should listen to him and kill these bills.

Link to article (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060519/OPINION01/605190345/1069)

bassplayer
05-20-2006, 08:58 AM
Fatal Error
State senate should shun shoot-first bills
May 19, 2006
Detroit Free Press

The state Senate Judiciary Committee ignored the voice of prosecutors, and reason, and approved a package of bills that would essentially sanction fatal shootings of intruders into homes or occupied vehicles.

These bills are not only dangerous but unnecessary. Courts have already given broad latitude to people defending themselves in their homes or vehicles. Citizens legally possessing a gun have the right to self-defense, including the use of deadly force, if they have an honest and reasonable belief that they're in danger of death, serious injury or sexual assault. That right is maintained even if the belief turns out to be wrong.

But exempting fatal shootings from prosecution and even civil actions is unreasonable. Prosecutors must be able to examine fatal shootings on a case-by-case basis. Shooting a mentally ill homeless woman who's banging on a window and attempting to enter a car, for example, is different than shooting an armed burglar breaking into a home. They ought to be judged differently, too.

Equally troubling, the bills could increase violence by fostering a shoot-first-and-answer-no-questions-later attitude. They could, at least potentially, provide a legal shield for murder if shooters invited the victims to their homes, shot them and then claimed the victims were illegally trying to enter.

These bills obviously have emotional support, but their proponents have failed to provide any hard evidence that they're necessary to protect the public.

Laws should discourage, not encourage, violent confrontations, Ronald Frantz, president of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, has said. This week he told legislators that "it's bad public policy to say deadly force can't be scrutinized."

State senators should listen to him and kill these bills.

Link to article (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060519/OPINION01/605190345/1069)


I wouldn't expect anything less from the Free Press.

"Shooting a mentally ill homeless woman who's banging on a window and attempting to enter a car, for example, ... "

Yeah when she's on crack wanting to steal from you and you can't retreat. You put a few caps in her and then her whole family sues the heck out of you and you get thrown in jail for not retreating enough... Cop - " You should have known it was a defenseless homeless women who was just supporting her crack habit... have a heart man!" :mg:

:roll: :roll: :togo:

rettom60
05-20-2006, 10:43 AM
That sounds just like a lawyer, the bills would cut out their gravey money.

appliancebrad
05-20-2006, 11:47 AM
That sounds just like a lawyer, the bills would cut out their gravey money.

That's why the Trial Lawyer's Association was opposed to the Bills.

Jerry
05-20-2006, 04:46 PM
Off Topic...Sorry!

Hey Brad I like your avatar!

Cool!

fbuckner
05-21-2006, 12:18 AM
That's why the Trial Lawyer's Association was opposed to the Bills.

I have asked a few lawyers about this not a single one would reply at all.
Of course they have to be careful just in case they run for office somewhere it could come back to haunt them. Not to metion all that money they would be out when not if this becomes law.

appliancebrad
05-21-2006, 11:32 AM
Off Topic...Sorry!

Hey Brad I like your avatar!

Cool!

Thanks Jerry! That's the plate on my service truck.

jeff s
05-22-2006, 11:30 PM
Laws should discourage, not encourage, violent confrontations, Ronald Frantz, president of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, has said. This week he told legislators that "it's bad public policy to say deadly force can't be scrutinized."

Ron Frantz - Ottawa County Prosecutor. He's against normal citizens having permits to defend themselves against the scum.

Hyperion
05-23-2006, 05:26 PM
I have asked a few lawyers about this not a single one would reply at all.
Of course they have to be careful just in case they run for office somewhere it could come back to haunt them. Not to metion all that money they would be out when not if this becomes law.

This lawyer is in favor of "castle doctrine" laws.