Posted on 04/11/2011 5:30:51 AM PDT by marktwain
JUNEAU — The state House on Saturday easily cleared a plan to clarify — or broaden, depending on who’s talking — people’s right to defend themselves with deadly force.
It would expand the explicit (in state law) right to use lethal force to apply anywhere someone has “a right to be.” Proponents say it will assure everyone in Alaska he or she does not need to back off if they find themselves in a dangerous situation and want to fight back with a lethal weapon.
Rep. Eric Feige, R-Chickaloon and a co-sponsor, said the change would send two messages. To good people, he said, it “solidifies their right to defend themselves. It makes it absolutely clear.” He said the measure also tells potential criminals to think twice before they break the law.
The bill passed 33-6. Rep. Scott Kawasaki, D-Fairbanks, backed the measure but with “apprehension.” A National Rifle Association member, he said the bill would not help address a social trend toward “a culture of violence” where “thoughtful deliberation” in conflict is too often replaced with violence. All seven representatives from the Interior delegation supported the bill.
Detractors said the measure would, as put by Minority Leader Beth Kerttula, D-Juneau, turn the state’s self-defense law “on its head” and compound state government’s ability to prosecute murderers.
The measure, House Bill 80, would need to pass the Senate and Gov. Sean Parnell’s desk to become law. Rep. Mark Neuman, R-Big Lake and the proposal’s lead sponsor, said by statement after the vote that he has worked with state attorneys to address concerns the measure could contribute to violence.
“The bill places the duty to retreat on the criminal or person who means to do you harm. We’ve expressly left the justification for the use of deadly force unchanged,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsminer.com ...
Violence is neutral, like gravity. In some circumstances, it has bad effects. In others it is necessary.
In fact, it could put all the State Troopers in Alaska in a no-spin zone. They'd need to back off FIRST.
Hmm. Can we get that law at the federal level?
Living out in the sticks, I've been threatened & had a few guns pointed at me over the years by the local kook balls; but it's all talk. When I tell them they'll have a war on their hands like never before, they always stumble off swearing and such. Hasn't been a murder here in almost 30 years. I don't think this law will increase the murder rate either.
I don't remember such an incident. Could you refresh us? Who is her brother-in-law? Todd's brother? Does he have one? Her brother's wife's brother? Sorry that I need so much help but I am lost.
In fact, it could put all the State Troopers in Alaska in a no-spin zone. They'd need to back off FIRST.
That is not what I read. This article says it puts the onus on the perp to back off first. I guess you are saying that the Troopers, being armed, are the ones creating the risk. As I read what little was in the article, it is talking about non-LEO episodes.
Hmm. Can we get that law at the federal level?
Nobody believes you've been asleep for the last 3 years BTW.
Now, about the Alaska state troopers, there's no end of stories of their being the aggressors in ordinary interpersonal relationships ~
Her sister's ex-husband. These guys are popularly referred to as ex-brother-in-laws.
As is Todd's sister's husband. I think they are properly called brothers-in-law.
Nobody believes you've been asleep for the last 3 years BTW.
You underestimate my advancing dementia. :-) In investigating this myself, I am reminded that Sarah has two sisters, Heather and Molly, as well as her brother, Chuck, jr. I do now remember the flap about Molly's ex-husband and the firing dispute but I had forgotten it.
Now, about the Alaska state troopers, there's no end of stories of their being the aggressors in ordinary interpersonal relationships ~
I have watched a couple of the episodes of the new show, Alaska State Troopers, but I was not aware of that. On the show they seem really laid back so I had the opposite impression. I know, I know, it's a TV show and it is not about their personal lives.
Thanks for the response.
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.