In an extremely lengthy column in the May 2 Neosho Daily News, Rep. Marilyn Ruestman, R-Joplin, again bragged about the positive effect of her so-called Castle Doctrine bill:
Our Founding Fathers had the wisdom and foresight to give us the right to protect ourselves and our homes with the Second Amendment. Currently, home owners can only use necessary force if they have reasonable evidence to believe their lives are in danger. Additionally, after an intruder has illegally entered one's home, a property owner has a duty to retreat and could be held civilly liable for using deadly force against the intruder. The Castle Doctrine we approved will protect individuals from civil liability when they are protecting their homes and property from criminals. With this protection, property owners will not have to face the same agonizing fate as some Missourians who have been subjected to lawsuits when they did nothing more than to defend their property. Also, this legislation changes the law so that you will be justified in using force if someone enters and remains in your house unlawfully and you can reasonably assume physical force will be used against you. Provisions of this legislation also remove the requirement to retreat from your home, property or vehicle if someone has unlawfully entered.
Ms. Ruestman has constantly assured us, since she first introduced this legislation in the 2006 session, that she did so at the request of many constituents. In the first place, I have a hard time believing that any constituents, unless at the behest of the National Rifle Association, were clamoring for this bill. It is being proposed in Missouri simply because the NRA is proposing it in states across the country.
And where has the media been? Ms. Ruestman and the Senator whose bill finally made it through, Jack Goodman, R-Mount Vernon, have firmly insisted that Missourians have faced nuisance lawsuits when they were simply defending their lives or property, but so far neither has produced any of these cases. If they existed, I would think either Ms. Ruestman or Goodman would be champing at the bit to parade the people in front of the media to bolster the case for the bill. Of course, they have not had to since no one in the legislature or in the media has questioned these lawsuits.
Goodman even said there have been no such lawsuits in southwest Missouri (so where are these people coming from that have been begging Ms. Ruestman to push this bill). As far as I can tell Dave Catanese with the KY3 Blog is the only one (other than The Turner Report) that has even posed the question.
The so-called Castle Doctrine bill (Frontier Justice is a more accurate description) is an unnecessary waste of time. Missourians have always had the right to protect themselves and use deadly force if necessary.
Well, since you think we already have the rights that this new bill is designed to grant us, why do your think it should be called the “frontier justice” law? Are you suggesting that we should not have the right to defend ourselves?
ReplyDeleteI know following logic is harder then arguing based on propaganda principles (namely, ridiculing a person or an idea by coining a silly name for them), however, consider what you are saying: First, you are saying we already have these rights but then you state that this bill should be referred to as “frontier justice” law. The implication in that name is that you think this bill somehow represents an uncivilized frontier mentality. However, if we already have theses rights, as you state, then you are not only scoffing at the new bill but you are condemning the law as it already exists. If that’s the case then you must think “frontier justice” already reigns in Missouri.
Define the word "defend".
ReplyDeleteFor instance, could Ken McElroy from Skidmore have successfully claimed to be "defending" himself as long as no one said anything to the contrary? You do remember Ken McElroy, don't you?
Anonymous, please see Randy's last comment again. He plainly states that people have the right to defend themselves by lethal means. Secondly, while the law already allows this the frontier justice bill would go beyond current law by allowing people to kill someone simply for being in their house. Meaning, I could have killed several maintenance men and several small children by now if this were law. sj
ReplyDeleteSeth, I have made these points in past posts but I shall make them again.
ReplyDeletePlease quote for me the section of the bill that allows one “to kill someone simply for being in their house?” The actual language of the bill can be found here: http://www.senate.mo.gov/07info/pdf-bill/intro/SB62.pdf
If you read the bill it states that “A person may not use deadly force upon another person . . .unless he reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself or another against death, serious physical injury, rape, sodomy or kidnaping or serious physical injury through robbery, burglary or arson.”
Now, to 4:06 poster, I would define "defend" as using force when confronted with the above crimes.
Despite the hysteria, the bill does not give one the right to kill anyone in their house for any reason.
As to the point that anyone could kill and then claim self-defense, that is why the defense is an affirmative one. In other words, the burden is on the accused to raise and prove a self defense claim.
Are you arguing that we should do away with the right to self defense entirely (because your argument would apply to the law now just as much as to the proposed change)?