North Dakota Considering “Stand Your Ground” Legislation
House Bill 1319 was introduced in North Dakota’s legislature yesterday. It is a piece of legislation that would remove language from the state century code requiring a person to avoid deadly violence in defense of self or others if possible. What that means, essentially, is that current state law requires you to try and run away from an attacker before you can turn and defend yourself.
The law, as amended by HB1319, would read like this:
Deadly force is justified in the following instances:
[...]
b. When used in lawful self-defense, or in lawful defense of others, if the force is necessary to protect the actor or anyone else against death, serious bodily injury, or the commission of a felony involving violence. An individual does not have the duty to retreat if the individual is in a place where that individual has a right to be.
The bolded language above is what is being added. It is replacing, in part, this language:
The use of deadly force is not justified if it can be avoided, with safety to the actor and others, by retreat or other conduct involving minimal interference with the freedom of the person menaced. A person seeking to protect someone else must, before using deadly force, try to cause that person to retreat, or otherwise comply with the requirements of this provision, if safety can be obtained thereby.
Seems like common sense, no? Rather than requiring those in danger from an attacker to fulfill silly avoidance requirements before he/she can turn and defend themselves, it recognizes that law-abiding citizens have a right to defend themselves if attacked immediately and without hesitation.
Update: By the way, if you support this legislation you really should contact your local legislators and let ‘em know how you feel.
Liberal gun control nuts are, predictably, entirely against this apparently because the “law would allow you to kill anybody who intrudes upon your space.” Except that the law doesn’t do any such thing. The criteria for the justified use of deadly force is still only to protect yourself or others from “death, serious bodily injury, or the commission of a felony involving violence.” No deadly force is justified unless it is an act which fits that definition. All that’s to be changed is the current law’s requirement that you try to run away (likely getting yourself shot in the back) if confronted by an armed assailant.
Unfortunately, though, it’s not just liberal “grab the guns” folks who oppose this law. North Dakota’s cops and prosecutors do as well:
BISMARCK – Prosecutors say a bill that offers strong liability protection for homeowners who shoot intruders is unnecessary, and may block criminal charges in situations where they may be warranted.
“We have a current policy in North Dakota that the use of deadly force is not justified if it can be avoided,” said Ladd Erickson, the McLean County state’s attorney. “We shouldn’t shoot people if we can avoid shooting people.”
That’s a rather shallow assessment, don’t you think? Would this prosecutor, or even the cops themselves, feel the same way if we were talking about a police officer being confronted by an armed assailant? We don’t require that cops flee from deadly attackers. We recognize that the police have a right, and a duty, to protect themselves and others from deadly attacks without having to flee. If you so much as wave a gun in a police officer’s general direction you are likely to get yourself shot down. And rightfully so. We wouldn’t expect our officers to flee from a situation like that, so why then would we expect our citizens to?
Why do we put the burden for avoiding situations like these on those citizens being attacked rather than on the attackers themselves? It seems to me that our law should be sending a message to would-be attackers: Threaten our citizens at your own risk. Like it or not, cops aren’t always around to protect us. If I’m walking through a park with my wife and my legally-owned gun in my possession and a mugger armed with a handgun threatens me I am entirely justified in shooting said mugger down.
Such are the consequences of violent crime, and the law should back that up.
The Democrats in the legislature, at least one Democrat anyway, objects to the language in the bill which states that a citizen doesn’t have to flee as long as the individual “is in a place where that individual has a right to be.”
Rep. Lois Delmore, D-Grand Forks, said the language would apply to almost any location.
“It could be a park. It could be a street, as long as I have a right to be there,” Delmore told Goens. “If I feel scared, I have a weapon, and I think somebody’s after me, I can turn around and take care of the situation?”
Again, what a shallow analysis. I mean, is Rep. Delmore really troubled at the idea that a citizen should be able to protect himself/herself without first having risk a dangerous retreat even if standing in the middle of a park?
As for Delmore’s question about being able to shoot someone down because she feels scared, she should try actually reading the law. It would not allow you to shoot people down if scared. Only if yourself or others are in danger of death, serious bodily injury or a violent felony.
It really amazes me how people exaggerate and misconstrue laws like this one. If the state’s prosecutors or cops or gun-grabbing liberals want to oppose this law, then fine. But at least let them be honest about it by not suggesting that this law allows citizens to shoot people down just because they feel threatened. Our current law’s criteria for justified use of deadly force in self defense are being maintained. What’s changing is the law’s requirement that we first risk our lives and try to flee an attacker before defending ourselves.
Update: Above I responded to a concern by Rep. Delmore over where this law allows citizens to defend themselves with deadly force by saying that I should be able to use my properly-owned firearm to defend myself in a park if need be. As it turns out, North Dakota’s gun carry laws prohibit citizens from bringing guns into parks where hunting isn’t allowed.
Which a) means Rep. Delmore’s concerns are somewhat unfounded and b) seems a little silly given that if I can be trusted to have a concealed weapon permit in the first place I should be trusted to carry a weapon in a park.
I can see bans on weapons in courtrooms and government buildings, but a park? C’mon.
Move_Zig
Graeme
likwidshoe
C. Y.
laydownSally
Lestat
goon
pparets
Puzzlefeet
