Yes, We’re Still Debating Gun Rights in Indiana
Wednesday’s Indianapolis Star headlined with a piece on legislation that clarified the notion that one has the right to defend one’s self rather than flee if a criminal act occurs.
House Act 1028 clarifies what already was more or less accepted in Indiana, but is codified in only two other states, South Dakota and Florida.
For some time, many states have held that citizens have a “duty to retreat” when confronted with an attacker before they could even consider deadly force in self-defense, but fifteen states, beyond the current three that have enacted legislation, are considering improving their self defense laws to do away with this antiquated notion. Not surprisingly, there were Democrats and anti-rights lobbyists who were opposed to seeing the bill signed. Consider this quote from Handgun Control Inc, er, sorry the Brady Campaign to not seem authoritarian or rights trampling or some such:
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has labeled such legislation "shoot-first" bills. Peter Hamm, a campaign spokesman, said Indiana's bill is "horrible" and "a big mistake."
"It's really a potentially dangerous solution to a nonexistent problem because there is not a scenario of legitimate self-defense anywhere in the country that doesn't get treated by juries, prosecutors and police as self-defense," Hamm said.
"We shouldn't be encouraging people to use deadly force in public. That's why we have trained police officers."
Well, I’d argue that several self-defense cases have cropped up where the homeowners were prosecuted. Some stories from New York City come to mind, never mind that the Democratic prosecutor uses gun violations to send residents to jail for shooting felons trying to break in to their occupied home. The sentiment is very much the same.
And assuming police officers will always be available, when legally it has been stated that police cannot be everywhere and do not have a duty to be in a position to protect you, just catch whoever killed or robbed you, then I’d say that Hamm is being naïve to say the least. That or he’s being disingenuous. In fact I think we should encourage deadly force. It’ll have the benefit of keeping the prison population down and might even make a criminal think twice before attempting that carjacking or trying to mug that little old lady. I think I can speak for the majority when I say that if some criminal were to attempt to harm me or my family at home or while I was out, I, in the words of Sylvester Stallone in the much-maligned film Cobra, wouldn’t just use deadly force. I’d use everything I had.
Predictably, some Democrats weren’t really crazy about it either, which almost in itself proves there was a need for clarification.
"We're talking about a bill that says you don't have a duty to retreat, but I think we should be avoiding problems as much as we can," said Rep. Vernon G. Smith, D-Gary. "This legislation says, 'Go get 'em!' "
EXACTLY. If someone breaks into your home, tries to pull you or your spouse or kid out of your car or assaults you or a loved one while you’re out, plug ‘em. Thanks for understanding Rep. Smith. I’d like to avoid getting mugged, carjacked, or worse too, but sometimes you can’t “avoid” a criminal no matter how many precautions you take. In that garage late at night, or on that lonely street or when you’re home alone late and hear a window break, sometimes you can’t “avoid” the criminal. You can only hope to survive him. In this case, if one of you has to survive, which would you suggest? Which do you think Rep. Smith would suggest?
Wednesday’s Indianapolis Star headlined with a piece on legislation that clarified the notion that one has the right to defend one’s self rather than flee if a criminal act occurs.
House Act 1028 clarifies what already was more or less accepted in Indiana, but is codified in only two other states, South Dakota and Florida.
For some time, many states have held that citizens have a “duty to retreat” when confronted with an attacker before they could even consider deadly force in self-defense, but fifteen states, beyond the current three that have enacted legislation, are considering improving their self defense laws to do away with this antiquated notion. Not surprisingly, there were Democrats and anti-rights lobbyists who were opposed to seeing the bill signed. Consider this quote from Handgun Control Inc, er, sorry the Brady Campaign to not seem authoritarian or rights trampling or some such:
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has labeled such legislation "shoot-first" bills. Peter Hamm, a campaign spokesman, said Indiana's bill is "horrible" and "a big mistake."
"It's really a potentially dangerous solution to a nonexistent problem because there is not a scenario of legitimate self-defense anywhere in the country that doesn't get treated by juries, prosecutors and police as self-defense," Hamm said.
"We shouldn't be encouraging people to use deadly force in public. That's why we have trained police officers."
Well, I’d argue that several self-defense cases have cropped up where the homeowners were prosecuted. Some stories from New York City come to mind, never mind that the Democratic prosecutor uses gun violations to send residents to jail for shooting felons trying to break in to their occupied home. The sentiment is very much the same.
And assuming police officers will always be available, when legally it has been stated that police cannot be everywhere and do not have a duty to be in a position to protect you, just catch whoever killed or robbed you, then I’d say that Hamm is being naïve to say the least. That or he’s being disingenuous. In fact I think we should encourage deadly force. It’ll have the benefit of keeping the prison population down and might even make a criminal think twice before attempting that carjacking or trying to mug that little old lady. I think I can speak for the majority when I say that if some criminal were to attempt to harm me or my family at home or while I was out, I, in the words of Sylvester Stallone in the much-maligned film Cobra, wouldn’t just use deadly force. I’d use everything I had.
Predictably, some Democrats weren’t really crazy about it either, which almost in itself proves there was a need for clarification.
"We're talking about a bill that says you don't have a duty to retreat, but I think we should be avoiding problems as much as we can," said Rep. Vernon G. Smith, D-Gary. "This legislation says, 'Go get 'em!' "
EXACTLY. If someone breaks into your home, tries to pull you or your spouse or kid out of your car or assaults you or a loved one while you’re out, plug ‘em. Thanks for understanding Rep. Smith. I’d like to avoid getting mugged, carjacked, or worse too, but sometimes you can’t “avoid” a criminal no matter how many precautions you take. In that garage late at night, or on that lonely street or when you’re home alone late and hear a window break, sometimes you can’t “avoid” the criminal. You can only hope to survive him. In this case, if one of you has to survive, which would you suggest? Which do you think Rep. Smith would suggest?
posted by Rob Beck | 5:46 AM
1 Comments:
I was surprised that this bill even made it out of the House. Not because of oppostion, tho. Standing ones ground has been established precident here for ages, as one of the folks in the news mentioned. I cannot think of any instance when a legitimate shooting has resulted in the shooter being harassed by the State. Al this really did was make established procedure more legally solid.
The Lifetime Carry bill "Duh Blade" signed Tuesday was another welcome thing, too. (Too bad he also signed another tax bill this week, tho. Typical of his sort.)
As for Smith...well, to quote the boys. "He's a douche". This is the same legislator that introduces victim disarmament bills almost every year. He has put forth a rash of the most vile and stupid bills that I have ever seen. If the LP could ever field a candidate against this idiot and his knee jerk electorate the rest of the State would breath a sigh of relief.
Post a Comment
<< Home