Single Page
Alaska lawmakers expand use of deadly forceJUNEAU -- The state House on Saturday overwhelmingly passed a measure expanding the right to use deadly force in self defense. By a vote of 33-6, lawmakers approved House Bill 80, which would allow the use of deadly force in self defense "in any place where a person has a right to be." Sponsor Rep. Mark Neuman, R-Big Lake, told his colleagues that the bill gives people the right to protect themselves wherever they are, not just in their homes, or place of work or to protect a child or assist a peace officer as is currently the law. The measure lets that right of self defense follow a person wherever they might be, he said. The bill is similar, although scaled back from, a measure that was debated but didn’t pass last year. Police and prosecutors raised serious concerns last year that it would make it harder to prosecute criminals who would raise the self defense issue. This year, officials with the Department of Law testified that the bill would bring so many new cases they would need to hire two new attorneys and another $450,000 to handle the increased workload. A later fiscal note said the cost could not be determined but still predicted a rise in cases. Opponents of the bill said state law already allows you to defend yourself anywhere if you genuinely fear for your safety or that of someone else. House Minority Leader Beth Kerttula, D-Juneau, said the bill would remove the "duty to retreat" that now requires you to walk away if you are safe. "I think this would basically turn the law of self defense on its head," she said. Rep. Les Gara, D-Anchorage, said authorities have said in the past such a broad self defense rule would make it difficult to sort out incidents like a gang fight at a mall. Rep. Lindsey Holmes, D-Anchorage, a member of the House Judiciary Committee which heard the measure, said the bill shifts the burden of proof onto the prosecutors to prove that someone charged with murder wasn't really in fear of their safety and could have simply walked away, rather then the defendant having to prove self defense. But supporters argued strongly that citizens should have the right to defend themselves no matter where they are. "This discourages crime by making people think twice," said Rep. Dan Saddler, R-Anchorage. The measure now goes to the Senate for consideration. Contact Patti Epler at patti(at)alaskadispatch.com.
I AGREE with this HB 100%. As there are too many slick, "loop hole" lawyers. I don't see this as a waste of time. But as usual. Take care, be safe. First the Daily News then the Dispatch? Could reporters and editors please bother to actually read legislation and research the laws it effects a bit before writing/publishing articles? There's more to journalism than just reprinting quotes and press releases unchallenged. This stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum, about a third of the states already have removed the "duty to retreat", some decades ago if they ever had one, and the (reasonable) fears of prosecutors and the hystrionic tantrums of the usual anti-gun suspects simply haven't arisen. The number of self-defense killings found to be unjustified have not increased. This law does nothing to "expand the right to use deadly force", the rules of when use of deadly force is justified haven't changed one whit. All that is being removed is the requirement of the accused, the victim of the underlying assault remember, to affirmatively prove to a jury, who wasn't present, that they could have retreated -in complete safety- prior to then meeting all the same requirements to actually use deadly force. The burden has simply been shifted, quite properly, to the state to overcome the presumption of innocence (remember that concept?) on that single narrow topic. It is in no way a "license to kill" or other such VPC/Brady hystrionics. Justifiable use of deadly force is still an affirmative defense with the burden on the victim to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in the eyes of a jury that they made the same choice a "reasonable man" would have in a by definition tense situation. If a prosecutor fears they can't make a case that a use of force was unjustified on the actual facts of the case rather than by merely claiming the victim "shouldn't have been in a place they had every right to be" or "could have retreated in perfect safety (the current standard) but didn't", maybe they shouldn't be prosecuting the case at all. It will still be a crime for felons or other prohibited persons to possess firearms, or for two people to engage in voluntary mutual combat. It will still be unlawful to claim self-defense when you are engaged in a felony. This really is a non-issue. It may indeed make prosecutors' jobs harder, but making their jobs easier at the risk of the innocent being convicted unjustly is clearly not, and should never become, a priority of our system of justice. As a Vietnam Vet, I see no difference in self defense during war or in any place I go outside of a war scenario. When the bad guy wants to take you out, and it seems inevitable that he will, you take him out first. It is the burden of proof that the prosecutor prove that deadly force was not indicated, rather than the defendant proving it was. I approve of HB80 and hope the Senate does also. This is simply a stupid pet trick for certain politicians to signal they support gun owners as if the legislator was intended as a circus to amuse children instead of a place to carry on serious state business. What a pointless waste of time and resources. I already have the right to defend myself as all Americans do since the time when the first British colonists arrived in N. America. |
Comments