Refuting the wild-eyed rhetoric about North Dakota’s “stand your ground” bill has become tiresome, but one can hardly let this bit of ridiculous pap from the Fargo Forum pass unchallenged.

There’s a new sheriff in town (well, in Bismarck) in the shoot-em-up persona of Rep. Al Carlson, R-Fargo. The veteran legislator raised North Dakota’s status on the national ridicule map this week with his less-than-subtle support for a bill that will allow North Dakotans who suspect (they don’t have to know) that a burglar is in the house to shoot first and ask questions later. Shoot to kill, we assume.

The bill extends the same privilege to drivers who suspect (again, they don’t have to know) that a carjacker is trying to steal their vehicle. Shoot first, ask questions later. Shoot to kill, we assume.

Does it get any more irresponsible? Any less civilized?

North Dakota law already recognizes the right of homeowners to protect their property and family by the application of deadly force. But current law – which would be changed by the new bill – says “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 being menaced.” In other words, the homeowner or driver has reasonable options other than killing someone.

The new proposal can be construed that even if a burglar were run off, the armed citizen could shoot him down (in the back, we assume), although the threat of harm from the criminal was gone.

The criticism of Rep. Carlson has to do with the statement he made on the floor of the legislature which I posted on previously here.

As for the assumption by the Forum that this bill allows people to “shoot first and ask questions later” or to even shoot fleeing attackers in the back, those are preposterous suggestions easily refuted by reading the current law and the changes proposed by the legislation.  Something the arrogant “grab the guns” liberals on the Forum editorial board clearly haven’t done.

As I have previously noted, this is how the law would read should the “stand your ground” legislation pass:

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 statement above would replace this passage which is in the current law:

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.

Notice that the criteria for when deadly self defense is warranted does not change.  It remains constant Under current law a citizen is not justified in using deadly force unless they are protecting themselves or others against death, serious bodily injury or the commission of a felony involving violence.  Which means that even should the “stand your ground” bill pass you would not be justified in shooting anyone who simply comes on to your property, nor would you be justified in shooting a fleeing attacker in the back. 

That the Forum would suggest that these things would be true is just plain irresponsible journalism.  But the Forum’s nasty, anti-gun rhetoric doesn’t stop there.  Get a load of this scenario they try to pass off as being possibly legal should the legislation pass:

Here’s a scenario: Junior stumbles into the house late. He was supposed to be home at midnight. It’s 3 a.m. Dad hears a noise. He reaches for the Glock in the nightstand. From the top of the stairs the nervous homeowner sees a shadow and shoots into the dark. Of course, it’s Junior, now bleeding, maybe dying, because he’s run afoul of a stupidly permissive law that panders to shoot-from-the-hip blockheads.

Again, had the Forum actually bothered to read the legislation as written rather than registering a shrieking knee-jerk reaction to it they’d know that a father shooting his son who simply made a noise while coming home late would not be justifiable as self defense.  It just wouldn’t be, and either the Forum editors know that are are purposefully misrepresenting the bill or they need some serious work on their reading comprehension.

The Forum concludes with this:

It was Forrest Gump’s mother who said to her son: “Stupid is as stupid does.” Even Forrest would recognize the dangerous idiocy of public policy that encourages killing.

Right.  So citizens who want to defend themselves from attackers without first having to flee are stupid.

Whatever.

This bill doesn’t encourage killing.  This bill encourages citizens to take a hand in the defense of themselves, their homes and their families.  That is entire premise of the individualism this country was founded on, not to mention the sort of thing the founders had in mind when they passed the 2nd amendment.  Perhaps the editors of the Forum should climb down out of their ivory tower and quit with the insulting rhetoric which implies that anyone who has an interest in standing up to attackers is some sort of moronic, redneck cowboy.

But perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised at the Forum’s mouthing of left-wing, anti-gun talking points.  They are, after all, known to shill for special interests even going so far as to copy/paste quotes from left-wing press releases right into their articles, word-for-word with no attribution.