Posted on 02/01/2007 8:44:49 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
Prosecutors say a bill that offers strong liability protection for homeowners who shoot intruders is unnecessary, and may block criminal charges in situations where they may be warranted.
"We have a current policy in North Dakota that the use of deadly force is not justified if it can be avoided," said Ladd Erickson, the McLean County state's attorney. "We shouldn't shoot people if we can avoid shooting people."
The legislation, which the North Dakota House's Judiciary Committee began reviewing Monday, says a person is presumed to be acting in self-defense if he shoots a burglar in his home, or a carjacker trying to get into a vehicle. It does not bar prosecutors from attempting to prove otherwise.
The bill, introduced by Rep. Todd Porter, R-Mandan, also gives the shooter immunity from a civil lawsuit filed in connection with a justified shooting. The carjacker or burglar, or his family, cannot collect damages from the shooter.
At present, North Dakota law says deadly force "is not justified if it can be avoided, with safety to the actor or others, by retreat or other conduct involving minimal interference with the freedom of the person menaced." The proposed legislation would delete that language.
Darin Goens, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, said the law should not require someone to give ground to an intruder in his or her own home. Nor should someone who is the victim of an illegal break-in or an attempted carjacking be worried about a lawsuit if he or she shoots the perpetrator, Goens said.
"Under the current statute in this state, (prosecutors) can charge you for defending yourself, and we feel that simply is wrong," Goens said. "When a criminal undertakes bad intentions, you shouldn't have to wonder why they're in your business, why they're in your home."
Lawmakers quizzed Goens about a sentence in the proposed law, included in a section that outlines the justification for use of deadly force, that says: "An individual does not have the duty to retreat if the individual is in a place where that individual has a right to be."
Rep. Lois Delmore, D-Grand Forks, said the language would apply to almost any location.
"It could be a park. It could be a street, as long as I have a right to be there," Delmore told Goens. "If I feel scared, I have a weapon, and I think somebody's after me, I can turn around and take care of the situation?"
The Judiciary Committee's chairman, Rep. Duane DeKrey, R-Pettibone, appointed a subcommittee to probe the legislation further. Its members are Reps. Lawrence Klemin, R-Bismarck; Kim Koppelman, R-West Fargo; and Lisa Wolf, D-Minot.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
This is well and fine, but some people just need shooting.
In today's sue crazy world this is so important now. You win in a court of law but a hand picked jury of idiots gives everything you own to some scumbag or his/her family helped by a money grubbing lawyer for revenge.
Loosely translated - "stop trying to put us prosecuters out of business."
"Loosely translated - "stop trying to put us prosecuters out of business."
So true...fewer criminals means fewer prosecutors. I'll bet the defense lawyers feel the same way. Our current injustice system is a great jobs program for those who graduated from law school.
Why doesn't Erickson concentrate on locking up the criminals so that such a provision need not be utilized? Hmmm. "A burglary gone wrong and a homeowner who used a firearm for self defense. I, the prosecutor, sees two crimes but I'll bet the FBI stats say only one. So, if I prosecute the homeowner I will have cleared one case against the one case added to my requirement. Seems a lot easier than prosecuting a criminal and I'll have a 100% closure rate. Works for me." Erickson's thought process?
Well no shiite, Sherlock. However, if someone enters my home at night without my permission (i.e. when all of the doors and windows are locked, and the later at night the worse), I'd be insane and unbelievably irresponsible to not think that that person presented a mortal threat to me and my family, and to act accordingly (i.e. shoot first, ask questions later). After all, perps are usually somewhat resistant to the idea of completing a questionairre detailing their intentions, listing any and all weapons on their person, checking their references, etc.
Instead of placing the moral/legal burden on innocent homeowners, why don't the idiot prosecutors place the responsibility and risk for illegally entering someone's home on the perps?
This guy is just another politically ambitious prosecutor.
The old saying, "when you have a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail" applies here.
When you're a prosecutor, everything looks like a crime.
"We have a current policy... that the use of deadly force is not justified..." said Ladd Erickson.
Having thus advertised his vulnerability, some thug someplace is probably planning a visit....
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
It means less *gasp* cops, too.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Pure politics...most DAs are more interested in padding their resumes with easy convictions instead of doing the work to try the hard cases against professional criminals.
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.