People have always had the right to protect their lives and property, and those supporting the Castle Doctrine laws never showed any instances in which anyone was deprived of that right.
In Missouri, Rep. Marilyn Ruestman, R-Joplin, filed the bill in the House, saying that constituents had stressed to her the need for the legislation. I would still like to know who these constituents were that made this such vital legislation since we have so many things going on in this state that seem more pressing.
From the Dayton Daily News:
Gun rights advocates say the law is a long time coming, while prosecutors are concerned that the trying of such cases will be more difficult.
Currently, if a criminal case comes from such an incident, the person who used force must prove it was self-defense.
Under the Castle Doctrine — already in effect in several states and named for the centuries-old theory that a person must protect his or her property (or castle) — it will be the prosecutors' job to prove it wasn't self-defense, which all admit is a much more difficult task.
"Right now, if someone breaks into your house tonight and waves a knife at you and you shoot them, you have to prove their intent," said Jim Irvine, chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Association, a state gun rights advocacy group.
"They're saying, 'Was their intent to sell you knives, or to kill you? Well, prove it.' That's what is going to change," Irvine said.
Apparently, even the Dayton Daily News reporter fell for the nonsense. If a prosecutor wanted to charge someone in a case like this (and I am still waiting to see this supposedly long list of cases where it has happened), he has always had to prove intent in order to get a conviction.
The scary thing to me is that once all 50 states enact the Castle Doctrine law, what will be the next law the NRA decides is vital to protect our Second Amendment rights?
3 comments:
It's interesting how you blame "the NRA" for this, as if it's a monolithic organization instead of a group 4 million citizens who have joined the nation's oldest civil rights organization. We have power because we vote.
7 to 10 million people in the US are single issue voters on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, something the Democrats have learned the hard way on the national stage over the last 14 years, and look to be repeating it this year.
As for Castle Doctrine type laws, they're needed because generally when someone shoots in self-defense (let's assume this results in death to keep the discussion simple), to claim it is a justifiable homicide requires admitting the act of homicide. That generally shifts the burden of proof onto the shooter, NOT the prosecutor.
This type of law is also important because it generally allows a home owner to assume that someone who breaks into his house has ill intent, and he then can use lethal force without having to prove that (Wikipedia has pretty good coverage of all this at the moment). The tactical issue with the former is that directly determining it is all too likely fatal, e.g. what you need to do to prove ill intent (shout, use a flashlight) gives the home invader a chance to shoot you, an unnecessary burden.
And many of these laws prevent the perpetrator or his family from destroying the home owner with a bogus civil lawsuit.
I can't name names since it's been so long, but I can cite a couple of cases in the early '80s in Massachusetts where the state's "duty to retreat" case law resulted in the conviction and imprisonment of two innocents:
In one, the court in effect demanded a woman escape through a small and high basement apartment window. In another, that a father abandon his sleeping daughter to the tender mercies of a home invader. Suffice it to say that these laws would not be getting passed if there wasn't a real need.
You wonder what's going to happen after Castle Doctrine is the law of the land in 50 states? Well, it's already in progress: "Stand Your Ground" laws (39 states left). No "duty to retreat" if you are some place you have a right to be, not just inside your home.
At the same time, we have "20,000 gun laws" to dismantle, nearly the whole edifice of post-Reconstruction "reasonable restrictions" that were first placed upon freedmen and later extended to the whole population. Be prepared to be upset for the rest of your life, for we have a "target rich environment", we'll be busy for probably as many generations at it took to enact all these infringements on the enumerated Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
If a prosecutor wanted to charge someone in a case like this ... he has always had to prove intent in order to get a conviction.
I have read multiple reports of the change this law enacts and every one of them disagrees with the above contention.
They all say that it creates a rebuttable presumption of innocence for the homeowner. If a prosecutor does not believe it was legitimate self-defense, the burden of proving that has been shifted to him.
Innocent until proven guilty. Last time I checked that was a foundational principle of our law.
If you believe in self-defense, Castle Doctrine laws are both good and needed. They obviously don't directly affect the fact that "People have always had the right to protect their lives and property", but they sure change the legal aftermath, and don't force you to weight protecting you and yours against a six figure legal bill afterwards to keep yourself out of prison.
It is about time we had some rights as homeowners against criminal elements. Do the criminals that break into your house have a certificate of training and a LICENSE to carry thier guns? are they acting in a law abiding manner? I think all of age citizens who are not adjuticated as mental or convicted criminals or people with protection orders on them ,should be trained and reguired to carry a firearm. Thank You Retired Deputy Sheriff
Post a Comment