Commentary
Bill would encourage citizens to shoot first, even when they could walk away instead
by Heather MartensIn January, Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Good Thunder, tried to repeal the state's background check system for gun sales. This week, he wants to legalize a kind of murder.
House File 1467, which ought to be called "Shoot First," will be heard in the House Public Safety Committee this Thursday. It would allow the killing of anyone who enters another's yard, even when the person is unarmed and posing no threat; and it would allow the killing of anyone in a public place who seems threatening -- again, even if the person is unarmed, and even if walking or driving away is a safe option.
Also buried in this bill is a loosening of concealed-carry permit laws to recognize all other state's pistol permits in Minnesota, even states with lax background checks that issue permits valid for life. It also makes it harder for local law enforcement to prevent prohibited purchasers from getting permits to buy guns, and limits law enforcement's ability to confiscate weapons in domestic violence situations.
The Shoot First bill includes the words "self-defense," but it uses obscure legalese and a bizarre redefinition of the common word "domicile" to make the bill apply to much more than self-defense. "Domicile" is redefined to include not just a person's home, but also the "curtilage" (fenced yard), "appurtenances" (outbuildings or garages), and even occupied cars (or conveyances). If someone enters "by force or by stealth" -- in legal terms, that means as little "force" as turning a doorknob or opening an unlatched gate -- then the person is "presumed" to intend to badly hurt someone. In court, a presumption cannot be rebutted, so no evidence would be allowed that showed the dead person had entered the yard by error, by invitation of the homeowner, to rescue a drowning child, or for any other reason.
The main rationalization for this bill is the false claim that Minnesotans can't legally defend themselves, and that even if someone invades a Minnesotan's home, the homeowner must run away. In fact, self-defense is legally protected in Minnesota; we already have "Castle Doctrine." Here are three examples from recent years:
Minneapolis: Vang Khang shot two police officers who had invaded his home by mistake. Khang was not prosecuted and collected over half a million dollars from the city.
Coon Rapids: Gerald Whaley shot and killed an unarmed teenager who entered Whaley's home, apparently believing it to be a vacant house. Whaley was not charged.
Rockford: Eric Cegon shot and killed his partner's ex-boyfriend, who was armed and breaking into the couple's home. Cegon was not charged.
Proponents of Shoot First laws have no examples of Minnesotans who have been sent to prison for defending themselves.
But in states that passed Shoot First laws (over law enforcement's objections), unintended consequences abound. As Paul A. Logli, president of the National District Attorneys Association, pointed out, such laws "basically giv[e] citizens more rights to use deadly force than we give police officers, and with less review." In Minnesota, the associations of police chiefs, peace officers and county attorneys all opposed Shoot First in 2008, when it was rejected by the House Public Safety Committee.
One consequence of Shoot First laws in other states has been the shooting of unarmed people in incidents that go uninvestigated or unprosecuted. For example, Jason Rosenbloom of Clearwater, Fla., was in his neighbor's yard - unarmed and wearing a T-shirt and shorts -- when the two were disputing how much garbage had been put at the curb. Kenneth Allen shot Rosenbloom once in the stomach and once in the chest. There was no investigation.
Another consequence has been to encourage people to take a life, even when they face no danger. Joe Horn of Pasadena, Texas, called 911 from inside his house when he saw two apparent burglars leaving his neighbor's house. The 911 operator told Horn to stay inside. But Horn said, "The laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it," referring to the passage of Shoot First in Texas. "I'm going to kill them." He did, shooting both men in the back, and he was cleared by a grand jury because of the Shoot First law. Afterwards, Horn himself told the Houston Chronicle, "I would never advocate anyone doing what I did. We [human beings] are not geared for that."
Horn said it well. Normal people don't take another person's life unnecessarily. People who are inclined to do so are considered sociopaths. Shoot First laws encourage normal people to act like sociopaths, and provide a way for sociopaths to kill with impunity.
According to an Orlando Sentinel article, in the first five months Shoot First was in effect in Florida, 10 central Florida people were shot in cases where Shoot First came into play. All but one of the people shot were unarmed.
A clear result of the Shoot First law in Florida is wide disparity in the way cases are handled by different police departments. In some shooting cases, there was no investigation at all, while in others, detectives investigated for up to 20 hours. Uninvestigated cases in Florida and Texas included ones in which drunk or disoriented people went to a stranger's door and were shot.
In Shoot First states, disputes between neighbors have turned deadly. People can now shoot others over small provocations. Any legislator who votes for Shoot First places a very low value on human life.
----
Heather Martens is executive director of Protect Minnesota: Working to End Gun Violence. She has been active in gun violence prevention since 2003.
Comments (25)
This piece is full of absolute lies. Worse than your normal work, Ms. Martens.
MPR, with all its' intoning "No Rant, No Slant", should be ashamed to have printed such a pile of blatant untruths.
Minnesota's second-amendment bloggers are going to tear this thing apart. Starting with me. Tomorrow.
(Although I already started yesterday: http://bit.ly/kohSbN and http://bit.ly/jP0Xmc).
First we have a morning show gloss by Kerri Miller on large-capacity magazines featuring notorious antigun resources.
Then we get a b-i-g article on "crime guns" which essentially said "yes, criminals will steal guns, and we should them call them 'crime guns ' because a Foundation that gives us money calls for it."
Now we get a commentary article leading the discussion over heme defense law change written by Heather Martens. As noted, Ms. Martens is a mouthpiece for the organization best know for running around hollaring "The Sky Is Falling," or "Blood in the Streets", with the two themes alternating.
It looks to me like the kneejerk gun control freaks at MPR have gotten loose again. Balance is badly needed, guys.
Violent crime in Florida is down 10% in 2010, compared to 2009.
Crime in Tampa is down 61% over the last 8 years.
Put down your tissues and your drama masks and recognize this one simple fact:
A society that encourages law-abiding citizens to lawfully defend themselves and others against violent criminals using deadly force is a DETERRENT to violent crime.
Fear-mongerers like you Ms. Maartens, are being ever more marginalized in face of the truth.
Criminal control, not gun-control.
Initial count: Fifteen outright lies - as in "180 degree divergences from actual fact". Three gross logical fallacies.
I'm still working on it.
I did find one truth in this commentary: "House File 1467, ... will be heard in the House Public Safety Committee this Thursday."
Beyond that, good lucky finding any facts.
Pay no mind to clueless thugs, Ms. Martens. Mr. Berg is a well-known right wing squawkradio host with a huge ax to grind. He has already called out his right wing compatriots to attack you in what he himself described as a feeding frenzy.
Let us hope that our governor, who is a sensible gun owner, will veto this terrible legislation should it ever appear on his desk.
Keep up the good fight and do not be intimidated by thugs.
Tell me Bill what of Ms.Martens article is accurate and not a lie? And you calling us thugs? I seem to remember SEIU thugs taking out anyone who disagrees with them at their rallies.
Please Mr. Berg, educate me. Outline and explain all 15 lies you found.
A very bad idea to recognize carry permits from other states. This goes against the interests of most Minnesota residents.
So Mr. Berg is finally has his article up on Shot in the Dark, alleging 15 lies by Ms. Martens. He also whines about the opportunity to respond on MPR. I hope you will do this so readers can judge his veracity. Mr. Rider, I am under no obligation to tell you what in Ms. Marten's article is a lie. If you believe that there are lies there, please list them so that we can all discuss. Mr. Berg's call for a jihad on Ms. Marten appears to have failed, except for himself.
HF 1467 defines the "protection space" pretty broadly - "A dwelling may include, but is not limited to, a building or conveyance and that building's or conveyance's curtilage and any attached or adjacent deck, porch, appurtenance, or other structure, whether the building or conveyance is used temporarily or permanently for these purposes, is mobile or immobile, or is a motor vehicle, watercraft, motor home,
tent, or the equivalent." Watercraft? Does that mean I can fire on anyone approaching my alumacraft if I accidentally fell asleep in it? Tent? That opens a lot of possibilities for "sound shots." "Equivalent?" How about a cardboard box on a hot air grate?
You actually fooled a few of the most conservative people i know with this article, for they would not believe the media would lie so blatently...but i showed them in black and white...if you do not want a bill/law passed for it is against your beliefs, you shouldnt lie Heather, you have a responsibility to your readers too, not just to your beliefs. I can name MANY examples of people entering homes with guns and being shot and winning lawsuits against home owners...one in Bloomington, burgaler enters home with children in it, he has gun, home owner shoots him, he gets crippled and sues and wins for homeowner never announced he had a gun too!!
Another example just like this happened about a year or so later, and they were both headlines, but you couldnt find these examples??? I bet people need to read this bill/law for themselves and see what it entails and NEVER trust you as a good source again, you should be ashamed and because of your BS i will nevr read anything you are affiliated with again!!!!!
I could be wrong, but one generally does not "walk away" from an attacker, regardless of the locale. I would prefer to defend myself.
Kleid - links?
Dave - so you just plug him? The problem with this bill is that if you do and claim that you were "threatened" you can get away with murder...
And the definition of domicile is huge.
And TeaPaws drunken campaigner could have been gratuitously killed under this bill.
Please think about this.
Bill, I have. I was attacked in the parking ramp behind Target Center back in the 90's. I could not have walked away. The attacker took my wallet, my keys and my car and left me with a shiner and head injury for my trouble. You need a good dose of reality, my friend. Muggers don't respond to kindness.
And yes, I would have shot him.
http://www.shotinthedark.info/wp/?p=19611#comments
Heather is just worried that her friend Joan and company will be out of work soon when their flawed ideologies come crashing down. It's a shame people can get away with these hit pieces.
I can't wait till I can shoot trick-or-treaters and jehovahs witnesses who come in my yard!
Martens you have no clue what you are talking about. Just another gun hater. Maybe some day you will be mugged and mamed, then you might think to yourself "Hmff if only I had a gun to stop the attacker my face might have survived." You and the rest of the anti group should really get together and discuss the facts that criminals are always going to have access to guns. Right minded folks are the ones getting permit to carry and understand laws like castle doctrine. Just like when Permits were first issued, people like you thought it was going to be a real shoot out like western movies-shootings in the streets etc. Nothing happened then and nothing is going to happen now. Wake up!!
This is one of the more slanted stories I've ever read. Someone needs to go back to journalism ethics class.
No one has the right to come into your home uninvited. Furthermore, no one ever breaks in "just to say hi". You need to wake up and come back to reality with the rest of us; this isn't Mr. Roger's neighborhood, it's real life.
Obviously the author hasn't seen this example of why this law is needed. xttp://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/21/new-hampshire-man-faces-felony-charge-after-firing-gun-into-ground-near-burglar/
The last stand of Minnesota exceptionalism is opposition to the
Castle Doctrine of self defense, its success in other states notwithstanding.
Only here would it negate the doctrine of proportional force, imperil law
enforcement, and result in blood in the streets.
These gun laws, make it open season, kill some one you don't like and call it self defence. If you live in a State with these gun laws, then it should be mandatory for every one to have a target painted on them. What's next for government computers to pick out people who pose a potential threat, or have bad genes and put them in front of a firing squad made up of it's citizens. The law makers should be shot or charged with 2nd degree murder or manslaughter.
if some one is trustpassing on my land and i fell threntend i would hesatate to shoot
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Terms and Conditions before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
