Knimrod
02-27-2006, 10:51 PM
EDITORIALDeadly Defense
Bill sends dangerous message on gun violence
February 27, 2006
Detroit Free Press
Michigan legislators are considering a bill that would sanction fatal shootings of intruders into homes or occupied vehicles. The bill would not be a sweeping license to kill, as some of its critics suggest, but it is certainly unnecessary, imprudent and even dangerous.
The courts have already, with reason, given broad latitude to people defending themselves in their homes or vehicles. But exempting such cases from prosecution and even civil action sends the wrong message to a society plagued by gun violence.
Michigan isn't Dodge City. Laws should not give people an absolute right to shoot first and answer no questions later, and it should not prohibit lawsuits in these cases, the merits of which are properly decided in court.
Citizens legally possessing a gun already have the right to self-defense, even 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.
The bill, introduced by Sen. Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt, would extend the right to preventing the commission of a forcible felony. In such a case, a person could apparently use deadly force even if they didn't believe they were in danger. It would also permit people to use force when they could have safely avoided confrontation.
Even given the broad right to self-defense, fatal shootings should be judged on a case-by-case basis. A driver who shoots and kills an unarmed, mentally ill homeless person banging on the window in an attempt to enter his car, for example, shouldn't be exempt from charges.
"The law of this state should be one that discourages, rather than encourages, violent confrontations," Ronald Frantz, president of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, wrote to Cropsey in a letter opposing the bill.
That's good advice from someone who should know; the Legislature should heed it.
Bill sends dangerous message on gun violence
February 27, 2006
Detroit Free Press
Michigan legislators are considering a bill that would sanction fatal shootings of intruders into homes or occupied vehicles. The bill would not be a sweeping license to kill, as some of its critics suggest, but it is certainly unnecessary, imprudent and even dangerous.
The courts have already, with reason, given broad latitude to people defending themselves in their homes or vehicles. But exempting such cases from prosecution and even civil action sends the wrong message to a society plagued by gun violence.
Michigan isn't Dodge City. Laws should not give people an absolute right to shoot first and answer no questions later, and it should not prohibit lawsuits in these cases, the merits of which are properly decided in court.
Citizens legally possessing a gun already have the right to self-defense, even 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.
The bill, introduced by Sen. Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt, would extend the right to preventing the commission of a forcible felony. In such a case, a person could apparently use deadly force even if they didn't believe they were in danger. It would also permit people to use force when they could have safely avoided confrontation.
Even given the broad right to self-defense, fatal shootings should be judged on a case-by-case basis. A driver who shoots and kills an unarmed, mentally ill homeless person banging on the window in an attempt to enter his car, for example, shouldn't be exempt from charges.
"The law of this state should be one that discourages, rather than encourages, violent confrontations," Ronald Frantz, president of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, wrote to Cropsey in a letter opposing the bill.
That's good advice from someone who should know; the Legislature should heed it.