PDA

View Full Version : Senate bill creates self-defense debate



Knimrod
04-16-2006, 11:47 PM
Senate bill creates self-defense debate
April 16, 2006
By AL ELVIN
The Oakland Press

Proponents of controversial legislation dubbed the "castle doctrine" say someone who breaks into a house shouldn't be able to sue if injured by the homeowner.

"If you use your pistol to shoot (a perpetrator), and he dies, you are not going to stand there and do the dance of joy," said Joe Oberlee of Clarkston, who teaches a Concealed Pistol License course at the Oakland County Sportsmen's Club in Independence Township. "It's going to be an emotional train wreck for you, personally. To add insult to injury, if you have to be sued after that, even though it was a justifiable shoot, it is not a good thing. It's a terrible position to be put in."

Opponents of the bill say common law already gives people the right to protect themselves and their property - and allowing them to "shoot first and ask questions later" isn't good public policy.

"This law is a terrible signal to send to people, that if you had second thoughts before, rest assured the government is on your side, so go ahead and kill somebody," said Peter Ham of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington, D.C. "It makes my stomach turn."

The bill, pending in the state Legislature, seeks to clarify what is deadly force and when people can apply it.

But, in the process, the legislation seems to be posing as many questions as it had promised to answer.

How far can a homeowner go?

The measure, Senate Bill 1046, was introduced earlier this year by Sen. Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt, and is awaiting action by the Senate Judiciary Committee. If the proposal, as is, becomes law, the legislation would provide for legal immunity - perhaps both criminal and civil - under various circumstances.

"We've been working on the issue, and it's one that I don't have a problem with," said Sen. Mike Bishop, RRochester. "In Michigan, we have the right to defend ourselves and our family without fear of criminal prosecution. We ought to not have fear from civil liability if someone breaks into our home."

A similar measure in the state House Judiciary Committee, introduced in January, addresses civil immunity, without reference to criminal immunity. This bill is more likely to pass in its current state because it does not provide immunity in terms of criminal prosecution.

"This is a good thing as long as people are going to be careful and use common sense," said Jerry Wrage, a Rochester Hills National Rifl e Association civilian and law enforcement instructor. "The problem that exists now is, even if you're right, you can still get sued. Someone breaks into your house, you shoot them and they sue you? Hopefully, this will create an environment that will make the homeowner more confident that he can defend himself without being sued by the bad guy."

Current law allows an intruder who is shot, or his family, to sue a homeowner who uses force against him while he is unlawfully in the house, regardless of whether the resident is prosecuted. This common law, opponents say, is good enough.

"We already have the right of self-defense," said Shikha Hamilton, president of the Million Mom March chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "If you were ever in a situation where a person threatened you with deadly force, you can respond with deadly force. We all have that right.

"Proponents of the law are making it sound like people don't have that right, which is blatantly untrue."

At least one other group, the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, had been opposed to the Senate bill. However, reported changes to the measure recently caused prosecutors to change their stance.

"It was too expansive," said Oakland County Prosecutor David Gorcyca, presidentelect of the group. "It was really shoot first and ask questions later. It was like, if someone is on your property, and you feel you needed to defend your property or person without a reasonable fear of apprehension, bodily harm or death, you could literally shoot first and ask questions later.

"The bill, as it stands now, would mirror the current law, which allows you to utilize self-defense only when you are in fear of imminent bodily harm or death. I think the revised proposal is something we did endorse."

Also, Gorcyca said, the group was not in agreement with giving criminal immunity.

"We thought that was overbroad and could include disputes on the streets or gangrelated violence," he said.

Debate continues

While changes to the bill are in the works, the state's Web site has yet to refl ect those modifi cations. John Lazet, Cropsey's chief of staff, would not say what has been changed but did confi rm adjustments are pending.

"The Web site only shows a bill as introduced or as passed," Lazet said. "It doesn't show you anything that's in process. It only shows you official versions, as introduced or as adopted and passed by the House. You won't see changes on the bill until it actually passes one house or the other. The answer is that changes are being made, but the senator is running them by people. It's one thing to have the concept. It's another thing to have the language."

Legislators return to work Tuesday from a two-week vacation.

Michigan is one of at least two states where such legislation is being considered, according to Ham. The other state is Georgia. Similar measures have been shot down in Wyoming, Alaska, Pennsylvania and Virginia during the current legislative session, Ham said.

"To be honest, I haven't even read the bill," said Sen. Gilda Jacobs, D-Huntington Woods. "Homeowners can protect themselves the way the law is right now. I don't think we should take that away from them. Does it go further than protecting yourself at home? I don't know. I really need to talk to the law enforcement officials in my district."

Adversaries, who have dubbed the measure "the shoot first" bill, are not so confident that lawmakers have hit the bull's-eye with this bill and have asked them to reconsider passing the legislation because of the level of legal immunity it would provide Michigan residents.

Ham said he heard of at least one situation, under a similar law in Florida, where a resident there "is using the shoot first law as his defense."

Proponents argue that the bill turns the tables on perpetrators who victimize homeowners.

"I think it's a great idea," said Ray J., a manager at Target Sports gun shop and shooting range in Royal Oak, who declined to give his last name. "You shouldn't have to be sued if someone is in your house uninvited, especially a bad guy who would do harm to you or your family. I've had customers that come in here and said they shot intruders before. I don't know if they got sued, but they didn't get prosecuted."

Added Rep. Shelley Goodman Taub, R-Bloomfield Hills: "A person's home is their castle. I have a tremendous problem with people who are in their own home and have no way of defending themselves. It's not shoot first. It's protecting your home and your family."

Link to story (http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/041606/loc_2006041603.shtml)