Today's Columbia Missourian features the first mention I have seen of a Missouri case involving a homeowner being sued for shooting someone who was on his property illegally.
It appears the case came to the Missourian through the diligence of its own reporters, and not from any of the legislators who have been claiming there is such a dire need for the Castle Doctrine bill, which was signed into law this week by Governor Matt Blunt and takes effect Aug. 28. As far as I can tell, these legislators have never cited a specific case:
In 2001, a Callaway County man, William Jones, shot and killed 18-year-old Jonathan Gramling during what police later said was a case of self-defense during a robbery attempt.
Gramling’s parents filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Jones in 2002, despite the fact he was never indicted for the killing. Reports at the time said Jones had chased Gramling and two accomplices from the house with a shotgun before firing his weapon. Gramling’s body was found about 32 feet from Jones’ house.
The Gramlings’ suit was dismissed in 2004. When reached by phone, Jones declined to comment.
While this case doesn't seem to fit exactly into the mold that has been described by the bill's proponents, it does prove that such cases have been filed. The case was quite rightly dismissed.
It is the only case mentioned in the article.
What seems evident from the Missourian article and from other articles about this law is that there really has never been any necessity for it in the first place. It is simply the flavor of the month for the National Rifle Association, which has been pushing Castle Doctrine laws across the United States. A few years ago, it was the right to carry concealed weapons that the NRA was pushing. By showing legislative success on these measures and by hyping mostly non-existent threats to the Second Amendment the NRA is able to keep relevant and keep the dues coming from members who think something substantial is actually being done with their money.
The Missourian article includes this passage which just about sums everything up:
Sgt. John White of the Columbia Police Department’s Community Service Unit said the department will follow the same investigative procedures as before and let the courts worry about whether the Castle Doctrine applies.
“I think the interesting thing is that Missourians have always had the right to protect themselves,” White said. “If they felt like they were in imminent danger, you could always protect yourself. So I’m not quite sure what the change in the law is going to accomplish, because we already had that right.”
***
My blogging colleague at the Branson, Missouri website has eloquently defended Sen. Jack Goodman, R-Mount Vernon, the sponsor of the bill:
The bill was one of three major issues for Goodman and was the topic of conversation during several of our winter interviews. Coverage of the bill, bordered on irresponsible. Goodman is a straight shooter (forgive the pun) and never once cited a case where this issue was brought up in the state , he has cited cases in other states.
I quote this passage from KY3 Political Blog's Dave Catanese March 13 interview with Goodman:
Is this a widespread problem?
"There have been not a lot of cases, but there have been some cases in Missouri of people who were victims of home intruders, being sued as a result of injuries they inflicted defending themselves," Goodman said. "Not a lot of cases, but some."
Has this happened around here?
"Not in this immediate area that I'm aware of, but they have been in the state of Missouri," Goodman said.
If Goodman was as well-versed on this legislation as he should have been (considering he sponsored it), he should have been able to cite these cases without any difficulty whatsoever. It appears all he was doing was using the same language used by the legislators who sponsored the bill in the other 22 states, which have been marching in lockstep with the National Rifle Association.
11 comments:
One little question. If Gramling was chased from the house and shot about 32 feet outside the house does that still fit a definition of self defense or defense of property? To be honest, I don't see any imminent danger posed by someone who's running away after being confronted with a shotgun.
I'm not supporting Gramling's actions. I'm just saying this doesn't appear to be self defense or even defense of personal property. I have no opinion about the lawsuit.
What I see here is simply a clear and unambiguous delineation of my rights to defend family, my property and myself. In the litigious society we live in there is no doubt that under the previous definitions you COULD have been sued for defending your home, person etc. Previously the burden was on YOU to resort to deadly force as a last result, you were supposed to “retreat” first. The question was, by putting the onus on the victim, you put the potential liability with them as well.
As to the NRA’s involvement, I believe that this law will simply clarify the victims rights and the result will be that criminals will clearly understand that, particularly in a state that also allows concealed carry, there will be less hesitation to defend ones self if attacked.
The writer implies that the NRA’s involvement in getting concealed carry laws passed was more of a fundraiser that functional however, there is plenty of evidence now that these laws have had a deterrent effect where instituted. With the Castle Doctrine laws taking the ambiguity out of defending oneself, I have little doubt that this will only enhance the chilling effect on the criminal element as they may wonder just who is armed but they will have little doubt that IF they are, they will defend themselves.
Let's see......if a self defense case had come about and made wide spread notice, critics would have complained that the legislature had not foreseen this and already passed a law. Now that the law is passed before there are many cases, the same people who would have critized lawmakers for not doing anything are criticizing them for doing something up front. That's why complainers of this type have no creditablity at all...they usually have no opinion on things (and probably never even thought about or contemplated the subject). They just wait for something to happen and then find fault.
No creditability at all...where are these people before action of any kind is taken? They were in the same place they are now when some kind of action is taken. No where.
Using your logic, Mr. Turner, there would be no law needed to protect our freedom of speech from being taken away from us by people suing for what ever frivilous reason they may want to or if it were to offend someone in the government.
Didnt you support the reporter shield law?
Maybe you should get your partisan head out of the ground and realize that there is merrit to the law.
Damn, that means the legislature did something right for a change. Cant have that, at least not until democrats take charge.
I see a bunch of replies based on emotion. Not one of you addressed the facts of that case or the logic in "protecting" yourself and your property from someone who was himself retreating.
And to the person who supposes that criminals will reconsider their attempt to steal, I would propose an alternative scenario that if they plan to steal they will be more likely to bring guns and be prepared to kill.
One last thought. Tornadoes, curious children/grandchildren, floods, common accidents are all things to fear if you keep valuables in your home. Why would you keep anything valuable enough to consider killing another person in your home? Most people use bank vaults for things that they truly value. They're safer.
I value mine and my family's life more than anything we own. But we can't very well live in a bank vault.
That still doesn't address the fact that the only case they could find was someone who was running away at the time.
Fact remains that, till now, breaking and entering was almost always nothing more than breaking and entering. That may change thanks to you.
"Nothing more than breaking and entering" That's a pretty stupid statement. So breaking and entering is okay then? If I get woke up in the middle of the night by someone that is there uninvited, they shouldn't be there and they WILL BE SHOT.
I was young Jonathan's girlfriend at this time of the killing. There were many circumstances and it wasn't self defense,
I would not be endangered by someone running from me... It doesn't fit any explanation of self defense. A few days after his birthday. He didn't get to live life. He made a mistake and paid for it with his life. Xoxo RIP
I have a gun on me everywhere I go, however it would take more than someone running from me
For me to end their life, no matter how evil or demented one is, everyone deserves a chance at life.
Because of the castle doctrine my son's killer will be free of all blame . It was not self defense
So. A man named William r Jones. 64 years old. Shot his step son in Springfield mo... being charged... I hope it is the same man... and I hope he rots in jail
Post a Comment