Lennyjoe
Member
http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/dailystar/113241
Bill eases curbs on deadly force
Would allow Arizonans to shoot invaders
By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 01.27.2006
PHOENIX — State legislators are moving to let Arizonans shoot to kill when someone invades their home or car, without fear of prosecution or civil suit.
Without dissent, the House Judiciary Committee adopted a proposal Thursday that says a person is justified in using deadly physical force when someone forcibly and unlawfully enters a home or vehicle and they believe they, or someone else, is in imminent danger of death or serious injury.
More to the point, Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said the proposed law makes it absolutely clear that in Arizona there is no duty to retreat if the offender has invaded the home or car.
That's actually the milder version of the measure. A more comprehensive proposal crafted by Senate Majority Leader Tim Bee of Tucson says when a person claims he or she killed someone in self-defense, no matter where it occurs, it is up to prosecutors to prove otherwise. Now the burden falls on the person who did the shooting to prove it was justified.
That provision alarms prosecutors. Rick Unklesbay, chief criminal deputy Pima County attorney, said it could result in people getting away with murder.
He said virtually every gang shooting involves the survivor saying the other person made some sort of threatening gesture or gang sign that left them in fear for their life. Unklesbay said the nature of these crimes would make it difficult, if not impossible, to overcome the claim of self-defense.
Ed Cook, lobbyist for the Arizona Prosecuting Attorney's Advisory Council, was more succinct, saying these situations generally have only two witnesses, "and one of them is dead."
Bee dismissed those concerns as alarmist, saying 45 other states have the same requirement on prosecutors to overcome a claim of self-defense. He also noted that's the way Arizona law read until lawmakers changed it a decade ago.
Unklesbay countered that proves his point. Under the old law, he said, "people were walking away from charges when they shouldn't have because we couldn't prove it wasn't self-defense."
State law already says people may use deadly physical force if they believe it is immediately necessary to protect themselves or others against unlawful use of physical or deadly force. Pearce said those provisions are insufficient to protect innocent victims who opt to stay and fight instead of retreat.
The no-retreat concept bothers Rep. Ted Downing, D-Tucson. "Fleeing is a lot better than fighting," he said.
Pearce said that may be true, but not in every circumstance. He said the choice should be left to the home or vehicle owner, and they should not have to worry that a decision to confront an invader will land them in legal trouble.
Downing disagreed. He said the law should spell out that people have an obligation to withdraw whenever possible before opting to shoot to kill.
"Testosterone doesn't have to rule the world," he said.
Bee, however, said there is an absolute right of homeowners to stand and fight, and use whatever force is necessary, against invaders.
"It is your home," he said.
"If someone's entering into it in violation, I think you have every right to defend that, absolutely," Bee continued. "I shouldn't have to run out of my house so some criminal can come in and take all my stuff or threaten or intimidate my family."
The proposal is known as the "castle doctrine" after the adage that "a man's home is his castle."
Dave Kopp, president of the Arizona Citizens Defense League, said the legislation is not a blanket license to use deadly force against any intruder.
"You can't just shoot somebody because they walk into your house," he said, noting the requirement that the person must have both unlawfully and forcibly entered the home and that the shooter believes there is imminent threat of serious injury or death.
There also are exceptions if the person in the home or vehicle has a lawful right to be there or was the parent, grandparent or legal guardian of a child being removed.
And homeowners can't shoot law-enforcement officers who identify themselves first, or if the person knows or should have known the person was a police officer.
The Arizona legislation is modeled on a 2005 Florida law.
Bill eases curbs on deadly force
Would allow Arizonans to shoot invaders
By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 01.27.2006
PHOENIX — State legislators are moving to let Arizonans shoot to kill when someone invades their home or car, without fear of prosecution or civil suit.
Without dissent, the House Judiciary Committee adopted a proposal Thursday that says a person is justified in using deadly physical force when someone forcibly and unlawfully enters a home or vehicle and they believe they, or someone else, is in imminent danger of death or serious injury.
More to the point, Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said the proposed law makes it absolutely clear that in Arizona there is no duty to retreat if the offender has invaded the home or car.
That's actually the milder version of the measure. A more comprehensive proposal crafted by Senate Majority Leader Tim Bee of Tucson says when a person claims he or she killed someone in self-defense, no matter where it occurs, it is up to prosecutors to prove otherwise. Now the burden falls on the person who did the shooting to prove it was justified.
That provision alarms prosecutors. Rick Unklesbay, chief criminal deputy Pima County attorney, said it could result in people getting away with murder.
He said virtually every gang shooting involves the survivor saying the other person made some sort of threatening gesture or gang sign that left them in fear for their life. Unklesbay said the nature of these crimes would make it difficult, if not impossible, to overcome the claim of self-defense.
Ed Cook, lobbyist for the Arizona Prosecuting Attorney's Advisory Council, was more succinct, saying these situations generally have only two witnesses, "and one of them is dead."
Bee dismissed those concerns as alarmist, saying 45 other states have the same requirement on prosecutors to overcome a claim of self-defense. He also noted that's the way Arizona law read until lawmakers changed it a decade ago.
Unklesbay countered that proves his point. Under the old law, he said, "people were walking away from charges when they shouldn't have because we couldn't prove it wasn't self-defense."
State law already says people may use deadly physical force if they believe it is immediately necessary to protect themselves or others against unlawful use of physical or deadly force. Pearce said those provisions are insufficient to protect innocent victims who opt to stay and fight instead of retreat.
The no-retreat concept bothers Rep. Ted Downing, D-Tucson. "Fleeing is a lot better than fighting," he said.
Pearce said that may be true, but not in every circumstance. He said the choice should be left to the home or vehicle owner, and they should not have to worry that a decision to confront an invader will land them in legal trouble.
Downing disagreed. He said the law should spell out that people have an obligation to withdraw whenever possible before opting to shoot to kill.
"Testosterone doesn't have to rule the world," he said.
Bee, however, said there is an absolute right of homeowners to stand and fight, and use whatever force is necessary, against invaders.
"It is your home," he said.
"If someone's entering into it in violation, I think you have every right to defend that, absolutely," Bee continued. "I shouldn't have to run out of my house so some criminal can come in and take all my stuff or threaten or intimidate my family."
The proposal is known as the "castle doctrine" after the adage that "a man's home is his castle."
Dave Kopp, president of the Arizona Citizens Defense League, said the legislation is not a blanket license to use deadly force against any intruder.
"You can't just shoot somebody because they walk into your house," he said, noting the requirement that the person must have both unlawfully and forcibly entered the home and that the shooter believes there is imminent threat of serious injury or death.
There also are exceptions if the person in the home or vehicle has a lawful right to be there or was the parent, grandparent or legal guardian of a child being removed.
And homeowners can't shoot law-enforcement officers who identify themselves first, or if the person knows or should have known the person was a police officer.
The Arizona legislation is modeled on a 2005 Florida law.
