Deadly force gun bill now in Alabama Legislature's cross-hairs

[seafan]

January 23, 2006


A bill expanding the circumstances in which deadly force may be used in self-defense is in the Alabama Legislature's cross-hairs.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Albert Hall, D-Gurley, cleared a House committee last week and is now going to the full House.

"I haven't heard of anyone opposing it," Hall told The Huntsville Times.

One opponent is Arthur Hayhoe, executive director of the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. He told the Times the Alabama bill could cause trouble if passed: "I call it the 'right-to-commit-murder' bill."

snip

Modeled after Florida's "stand-your-ground" law, which was passed last year and signed into law by Gov. Jeb Bush, Hall's bill is being pushed in Alabama by the National Rifle Association, which wrote the Florida law.

snip

"It encourages irresponsible, aggressive and even illegal use of firearms," Hayhoe said.

Hall said he proposed the bill at the request of a constituent, not the NRA.

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060123/APN/601230838&cachetime=3&template=dateline

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

1. I think the real title is "Right to kill people who scare you."

Geez, even the Dems here are mostly idiots.

[Toots]

15. You just have to say they scare you

It could be you just hate the person...

[slackmaster]

23. That's not an accurate description of Florida's law or any other

You still have to have had a REASONABLE fear.

This kind of law only shifts the burden of proof more to the shoulders of the state. You cannot simply say you were afraid, if the facts don't support the reasonableness of your fear.

[benEzra]

27. WRONG...

You just have to say they scare you...It could be you just hate the person.

Wrong. In Florida, and everywhere else, here are the primary criteria by which a self-defense shooting will or will not be ruled justifiable:

A citizen is legally justified in using deadly force against another if and only if:

(a) The citizen actually believes deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(b) The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force WAS necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(c) The citizen using deadly force was not an instigator or aggressor who voluntarily provoked, entered, or continued the conflict leading to deadly force, AND

(d) Force used was not excessive -- greater than reasonably needed to overcome the threat posed by a hostile aggressor.


You've been the victim of anti-self-defense lobby press releases...here's a self-defense lawyer's analysis of the new Florida law here:

http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/florida-selfdefense-law-analysis.pdf


See post 13 for more details.

[Bandit]

28. "or sexual assault, "

I guess sexual assault is now a Capital Offense. :shrug:

[benEzra]

29. Not a capital offense, but I'm not sure I follow you...

if someone tries to violently rape someone, you are saying that the victim is obligated to LET the rapist do whatever it his he wants to do?

That's certainly a very personal choice, but IMHO it is not the business of the State to protect rapists from their would-be victims. If someone wants to rape you and you choose to let him, fine, that's your choice. A lot of people would choose differently, and the law allows them that choice. That's not capital punishment, just self-defense.

Self-defense is NOT punishment for a violent crime; it is the legal act of STOPPING a violent crime from being committed.

Threatening a police officer with a knife or a gun isn't a capital crime either, but it will certainly get you shot...

[Bandit]

30. If the Law thought rape was a Capital Offense they would have made it so.

They did not becaue they felt a life was worth more than that. Apparently you do not..

[benEzra]

32. The *LAW* says deadly force is authorized to stop rape, not me...

If the Law thought rape was a Capital Offense they would have made it so.

They did not becaue they felt a life was worth more than that. Apparently you do not..

Ummm...the LAW says deadly force is authorized to stop rape...I didn't cite NRA talking points, I cited the law.

The law (both statuatory and precedent) does define offenses for which capital punishment may be used (in states that have capital punishment), and the procedures for implementing it, procedures for appeal, standards of evidence, etc. The law (both statuatory and precedent) also recognizes a totally separate category of homicide called justifiable self-defense, and sets forth the conditions under which someone may use potentially lethal force to defend themselves against various violent crimes, including murder and rape.

The law says that self-defense is NOT capital punishment. What the law says about justifiable use of force in self-defense has nothing to do with what the law says about capital punishment as retribution for a crime. I would challenge you to find a statute that conflates the two concepts.

Even states that do not have capital punishment (i.e., Massachusetts) DO recognize the inalienable human right of self-defense. Every state in the nation does.

In many (most?) states, simple murder is not a capital offence either. Yet you ARE authorized to use potentially lethal force to prevent yourself from being murdered, as long as you are an innocent victim and did not instigate the confrontation.

As I said previously, whether or not to use force to prevent oneself from being raped--or murdered, for that matter--is a deeply personal decision. I wouldn't force my or my wife's choices in that regard on you, and I would not expect you to force your choices on us. If you feel that to use potentially lethal force to stop a rape, or to prevent yourself from being murdered, would be morally wrong, then by all means live according to your beliefs. But AFAIK every major organized religion on the planet, as well as many non-religions such as atheism, have doctrines or traditions recognizing the individual's right to defend herself/himself against a violent aggressor.

[michreject]

40. As it should be-eom

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

38. "You've been the victim of anti-self-defense lobby press releases..."

Do you work for the bush administration?

[liberaltrucker]

2. Alabama already has a "make my day" law.

I don't see a need for this. BTW, I'm from Alabama.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

3. Me too. Sigh.

There is hope though.

[northofdenali]

4. One is up for passage here, as well.

Again, courtesy of the NRA.

[Mnemosyne]

5. Oh gawd, how tragic this will become.

I lived in Alabama twice. The first time was 1977 + 1978 and I didn't pay much attention to state politics then, only national. The second time was from 1993 to 1996. Rove was hanging out with Roy Moore, among other creatures, at that time.

The second time I met a guy several times that had killed two black men in 10 years and had not been convicted, much less even charged in either incident.

In the first incident he owned a bar and an old blind black man came in with his seeing eye dog. Mutant told him to get his dog out of the bar, old man refused. Boom -"He had a gun." Right. Don't most blind people? No charges filed, self-defense. Dead old blind man.

Second incident. Mutant is now repossessing trailers. Someone has been breaking in and stealing lamps, curtains, whatever. Used trailer curtains are of dubious value. He lays in wait one night to try to catch someone and sure enough catches some guy coming out of one of the trailers carrying some of those fine trailer curtains. Tells him to stop and points his gun at the thief. The thief (most likely a crack head in that area, not a judgment, just fact) freaks out and takes off running for the highway. The mutant shoots him in the back from about 15 feet away. A steak knife was found near his hand on the ground. No charges were filed. Self-defense once again. Another dead black man.

Both of the men dead were black. The mutant that killed them was white.

Both incidents were in the same town, same sheriff. I was stunned when I heard about these incidents. Not.

I am not moving there again.

I moved there for love, btw, thought I could handle it. Couldn't for long!

V

[orwell]

6. Lesson: Guns don't kill people...

...mutants do

[Mnemosyne]

7. Seriously,

:rofl:

[slackmaster]

24. Can you provide links to those cases?

It sounds like there was more to them than you have cited here.

[Mnemosyne]

31. No, just had the moron telling his story at my house

in Alabama, confirmed and applauded by his friends. It was near Montgomery. The second incident was between 1993 and 1996, can't remember which year exactly, very bad memory with dates. It must have been covered in the Advertiser, I would think. I was so disgusted to have the moron in my house, but my ex- liked to drink and all kinds ended up coming around then. He was so proud of himself.

If you are implying I've exaggerated, I have not. I am just relaying what an idiot bragged about with his friends and they confirmed in my presence.

[slackmaster]

33. Sounds like your source wasn't a very credible person

Not to impugn your integrity in any way; please understand I cannot accept as truth a story that A) lacks a verifiable source and B) fails the smell test on its surface.

[Mnemosyne]

36. All I know is he had

friends backing up his story. I only know what they said and told what I can remember.

I lived in an old sharecroppers shack at the end of a half-mile dead end road surrounded by cows, no phone, no newspapers, no television. I had no way to verify anything. I bought a paper when I went to the grocery once a week or so.

If I speak with my ex I will see if he remembers the idiots name, then his story can be checked if you care to do the work since you ARE questioning my integrity.

I have no reason nor motive to lie.

[slackmaster]

39. I'm not questioning what you are saying that you heard

But as far as confirming a story about someone getting away with shooting a blind person, your account is hearsay.

[HuffleClaw]

8. what complete madness

and a law that will, of course, be very selectively applied. to wit, nobody with less than lily white complexions need apply.

[benEzra]

9. Anybody have a link to the text of the law?

If it's modeled after Florida's, then it does NOT allow you to just shoot someone whom you feel threatened by. Rather, the other criteria for a justifiable self-defense shooting would still apply, but you could no longer be second-guessed for failing to run away from a violent attacker if you did not feel you could safely do so.

Lots of states already have such laws, but Florida notably did not until recently. The anti-self-defense lobby has put a lot of effort into promulgating the myth that such laws allow you to "shoot anyone who you feel threatened by," but that is complete BS if you actually read the laws in question.

FWIW, I am a former Florida resident and have studied Florida self-defense law in great detail, as my wife and I were both licensed by the state to carry weapons.

[bothwell]

10. Who decides "Justifiable"

So the gunowner decides hawaiin shirts are Justifiable but the courts see it another way, I am not being flippant but how on earth can a third party decide at a later date what is justified or not. I read what you say about the self defence law but again I suppose it depends on ones perception of the threat.

A friend of mine is a LE officer in Florida and it still freaks me out when I visit her, she carries all the time, it just seems so strange to me that someone has a gun on them at all times

[benEzra]

13. A brief tutorial on self-defense law:

Who decides "Justifiable"...So the gunowner decides hawaiin shirts are Justifiable but the courts see it another way, I am not being flippant but how on earth can a third party decide at a later date what is justified or not. I read what you say about the self defence law but again I suppose it depends on ones perception of the threat.

A friend of mine is a LE officer in Florida and it still freaks me out when I visit her, she carries all the time, it just seems so strange to me that someone has a gun on them at all times

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I have been studying self-defense law for well over a decade, have been licensed to carry a concealed firearm in both Florida and North Carolina, and am currently authorized to carry in ~31 states. So this is something I've looked into quite a bit.


First, a claim of self-defense is not an automatic exemption to the laws against homicide. Rather, it is what is known as an affirmative defense; unlike the regular innocent-until-proven-guilty standard applied to a criminal act, the onus in a self-defense shooting is on the shooter to demonstrate that the shooting WAS indeed justifiable self-defense. In other words, if the shooting is questionable, it is much more likely to swing against the person claiming self-defense than it is to swing in their favor.


As far as what constitutes "justifiable," I'll quote from Steve Johnson, Concealed Carry Handgun Training, North Carolina Justice Academy, 1995, pp. 3-4 (the laws in Florida are similar):

"(1) Justified Self-Defense

A citizen is legally justified in using deadly force against another if and only if:

(a) The citizen actually believes deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(b) The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force WAS necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(c) The citizen using deadly force was not an instigator or aggressor who voluntarily provoked, entered, or continued the conflict leading to deadly force, AND

(d) Force used was not excessive -- greater than reasonably needed to overcome the threat posed by a hostile aggressor."

(Emphasis added.)

Note that ALL FOUR conditions must be met in order for a shooting to be ruled justifiable.


There are a few other conditions that may constitute justifiable self-defense; for example, here in North Carolina, if someone is in the act of actually breaking into my house, I can shoot the home invader as they kick the door down or crawl through the window and it would automatically be ruled justified (that's NC's version of the Castle Doctrine, and almost every state has similar rules). The presumption is that if the guy is kicking your door down, he's not there to sell magazine subscriptions.


In Florida (where I used to live, and where my wife and I were also licensed to carry a firearm), the law was recently changed to extend the Castle Doctrine to your car, so that if someone is actually in the act of carjacking you, you can legally defend yourself. If someone accosts you on the street in Florida, though, conditions (a) through (d) above must still be met, even under the new law. Under the old law, there was an additional requirement to try to run away first, but the new law reflects the fact that if someone is threatening you with lethal force, running away is not always going to be the safest option, and that whether or not it would have been safe to do so is not something that can be easily judged after the fact.


Florida, and many other states, also authorize potentially-lethal force to stop the commission of a "forcible felony," as defined by statute; such would include kidnapping, armed robbery, aggravated assault (i.e., assault likely or intended to maim or cause serious bodily harm and that could result in death), etc.


The authoritative resource on Florida firearms law is and has always been Jon Gutmacher, Florida Firearms: Law, Use, and Ownership, currently in its sixth edition (http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/index.shtml).


He also has an analysis of the new law in Florida here: http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/florida-selfdefense-law-analysis.pdf

[Toots]

17. What it does in effect is turn crimes like robbery or rape into Capital Cr

When you can take a person's life for robbery then you effectively turn robbery into a Capital Crime. Instead of a Law and Order Society what we have with these type laws is an Absence of Law...It is the GOP way....

[benEzra]

19. If someone is threatening to KILL you if you don't let them rape you

or rob you, it's NOT capital punishment to act to preserve your life or to prevent the attacker from raping you. The objective is to stop the attack, not to "punish" the attacker. If the attacker sees the victim is armed and runs away, great. If he gets shot and survives, good. If he is fatally wounded because his intended victim fought back, that's tragic all around, but it's much LESS tragic than if the victim had been killed.

Armed robbery isn't a business transaction; it's an imminent and lethal threat to your life, and compliance doesn't mean the attacker won't kill you anyway.

Here's why I personally would be wary of complying with an armed robber (black-and-white surveillance video of convience-store robbery; the clerk was murdered after he complied with the robbers' demands): http://www.itsdumb.com/content/videos/337/Shot_by_robber.html (Disclaimer--although the video is not graphic, it is very disturbing, and is hosted on a very questionable site--you are forewarned.)

The sad fact is, someone who is so calloused toward human life that they are willing to threaten to KILL you over twenty bucks is very, very dangerous.

[Laelth]

37. Well, yes and no.

Quoteit's NOT capital punishment to act to preserve your life or to prevent the attacker from raping you

In fact, it is murder (and not "capital punishment") to use deadly force to prevent a person from raping you, battering you, or otherwise harming you IF you could escape instead of shooting them. At least, that's the rule in Alabama (and in most states) now.

What this proposed law does is to take away the "you must escape if you can" requirement. That's why it's called a "stand your ground" law. Under traditional common law, you could only use deadly force in self-defense if you couldn't escape (unless you were in your own home, in which case an inability to escape is not required to use deadly force). What these laws do is take away the requirement to try get away from the attacker before shooting them. Under these laws, you don't have to retreat, even if you could do so easily and avoid all harm. You can stand your ground and blow 'em away.

It's really quite barbaric.

-Laelth

[slackmaster]

22. Defending one's self is NOT administration of punishment

If you kill someone only for revenge, then you are a murderer.

Killing in self-defense is not the same, legally or morally, as the state executing someone after a trial.

[michreject]

11. "It encourages irresponsible, aggressive and even illegal use of firearms,

More of the sky is falling. SHEESH!!!

[davepc]

12. The anti-self defence lobby only has hyperbole.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/31/nburg231.xml

"We considered it outrageous that someone who protects his home and family should suffer. Our law says you can use any force, including deadly force, to defend your home."

It has been an unqualified success. Since the Make My Day Law came into force, burglary has declined by almost half in Oklahoma. In 1987, there were 58,333 cases; in 2000, just 31,661.

While crime rates throughout America fell in the 1990s, Make My Day supporters point to a second statistic in Oklahoma they say proves the impact of the new law: while burglary rates plunged, other forms of theft stayed constant. In 1988, there were 96,418 cases, in 2000, 96,111.

...

There have now been at least 11 cases where intruders have been shot dead in Oklahoma and the householders who pulled the trigger have escaped any sanction under the Make My Day law.

Geeze, 11 cases in 19 years. Yup, looks like that law is being used left and right in Oaklahoma to justify indisciminate muder.

[Tesha]

14. The amusing part is all the posts here in DU that deny that the South is..

The amusing part is all the posts here in DU that deny that the South
is any different than the Northeast, Midwest, or West.

Tesha

[Malikshah]

16. As ever-- FL leads the way in stupidity

The Castle Law...

Now the OK Corral law...

God, I hate this state. If it weren't for my job and partner...

[benEzra]

20. Almost every state applies the Castle Doctrine to your home...

even California and (I think) Massachusetts.

You'd feel the same way about Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, and California...if the Castle Doctrine is your criterion...

[Malikshah]

25. True, but IIRC, Florida led the way...

That was my point. Florida starts the crazy train on its route.

[benEzra]

26. IIRC, the other states have had their laws a LONG time...

for example, the state of Washington has had a shall-issue permit system (you know, the one the neoprohibitionists like to compare to the Wild West) since 1961, and IIRC Vermont has always allowed the law-abiding to carry guns. I'll try to dig around a little and see how long other states have had them on the books.

Most Castle Doctrine statutes probably go back a century or more, and many no-retreat-required laws probably go back 50 years, or even 150. Florida is late to the party on that score. The difference is, of course, that the anti-self-defense lobby didn't exist when most of the states with such laws passed theirs, and right now that lobby is having a really bad time and has to find something to complain about to justify more fundraising...

The principle that one's home is one's "castle" itself comes from ancient Anglo-Saxon common law (that's why it's called the *castle* doctrine, it dates to the era when a fortress was a castle, hence the castle analogy). It's not a recent development, either in this country or elsewhere.

[Dolomite]

18. Blood. Streets. Run.

I'm sure they've been hearing plenty of that in AL since Section 13A-11-73 (CCW) was put into law...

... back in 1975.

[slackmaster]

21. Sounds a lot like California's system but extended to vehicles

California's presumption of justifiability of use of deadly force applies only to residences and businesses. A person who uses deadly force against someone who enters unlawfully and forcefully is presumed to have had a reasonable fear of being injured or killed, so the deadly force is presumed to be justified.

That presumption is of course rebuttable. You can't get away with shooting a drunk who falls in through a window and passes out on your floor.

This issue is a tempest in a teapot. This type of law is intended to protect people who engage in legitimate acts of self-defense from being sued into the poor house by ambulance chasing lawyers and anti-weapons pressure groups.

[brentspeak]

34. What precisely was the problem with the current law?

Current law:
The law now says: "A person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if it reasonably appears he knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety: by retreating, except the actor is not required to retreat.

Proposed law:The language at issue in the bill says a person may use deadly force if that person believes "that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred" in a residence or vehicle.

I'm reading from supporters of the new bill that experience hasn't borne out the "Wild West" theory of Florida's new law (which I'm not sure is true or not). But has experience borne out that the old (current) law has resulted in all these alleged lawsuits filed against those who have used deadly force in actual self-defense cases? Where's the evidence of this alleged abuse of the legal system?

[colonel odis]

35. you can have all the a)s. b)s, c)s, and d)s you want. it'll come down to

the color and economic/social class of the person shooting and the person being shot.

i lived in alabama two full years and have spent about two months a year there on business for the last 10 years. those people are absolutely nuts.