NH law enforcement urges Lynch to veto (stupid GOP/NRA castle doctrine) gun bill

[jpak]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2011/07/08/nh_law_enforcement_urges_lynch_to_veto_gun_bill/

CONCORD, N.H.—New Hampshire's police chiefs and sheriffs are urging Gov. John Lynch to veto a bill that expands the state's deadly force law to allow people to kill in self-defense anyplace they have a right to be.

The current law allows people to use deadly force in self-defense in their homes without being required to retreat. They can use deadly force in public to defend themselves or others if they can't safely retreat.

The New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police and the New Hampshire Sheriffs Association told Lynch that the use of deadly force in self-defense should be justified under the law only when there is no reasonable alternative.

<more>

Castle Law = Legalized Murder

yup

[zanana1]

1. That's just common sense.

Up here in NH, we used to have alot of that.

[ileus]

2. Wonder why they're scared of facts about the castle doctrine...

[Tesha]

3. "scared" is an odd choice of words

here are a few concerns...

"In the Senate. Sen. Matthew Houde, D-Meriden, noted the concern of the Attorney General’s Office and the Chiefs of Police Association of New Hampshire about the bill.

“I still fear this opens the doors to the use of deadly force in public at tremendous risk to bystanders,” Houde said. “I still believe this is a solution in search of a problem. The current law works just fine.”

Sen. Sylvia Larsen, D-Concord, said the bill puts public safety at risk and may allow guns in courts, schools, day cares and even the State House. “This puts the public’s safety at risk and that is wrong.” she said."



But mostly its just another of the many, many bills forced on NH from ALEC and the NRA.

[PavePusher]

4. Those darn Constitutional Rights....

Damn people seem to want'em everywhere they go.

What a buncha moroons.

[jpak]

5. Vigilantism is not a Constieetooshunal right

yup

[PavePusher]

6. Self-defense is not vigilantism.

I bring you a gift:

http://dictionary.reference.com/

yup

[Hangingon]

7. +1

Thanks PavePusher!

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petronius]

28. You're already allowed to use deadly force anywhere you legally are in NH,

to protect yourself. What the bill changes is that you are no longer required to retreat, even if you know you can do so with absolute safety.

I doubt it will change much, if anything, in terms of the frequency of self-defense shooting, but it does remove an after-the-fact legal risk faced by those who are put in the position of defending themselves. As it stands now, a victim could be accused of shooting when he could have retreated, and prosecuted for it. Although the prosecutorial bar is high, I think it's better to remove that risk for all places, rather than just in the home...

[Tesha]

14. no one is challenging the Constitution

this is an unnecessary law - it simply isn't necessary

[aikoaiko]

25. I think it is unreasonable for people to say in hindsight "oh you could have retreated"

If someone is acting lawfully, the only thing that matters is whether or not the person who used lethal force was threatened with grave injury or death. And it should the state's responsibility to prove that a threat of grave injury or death did not exist in order to convict.

[gejohnston]

10. I take it that studies done by criminologists

You know, real scientists that study these issues found that you are in greater danger by trying to retreat? Does it matter that the victim, being at the scene, would know the situation better than some DA? Never mind the fact that there is no empirical evidence that it would be a risk to bystanders? Also, who defines "safely retreat."

This is just a philosophical point on my part, but do attacks occur when there are a lot of bystanders? If so, why are those bystanders just standing around? Is she saying that most NH citizen is like Kitty Genovese's neighbors were alleged to have been in NYC? Sorry, Sen Larson did not think this through very deeply.

Sen. Houde could do well to look up appeal to unqualified authority fallacy.

[Tesha]

15. please provide the cite...

and yes - attacks DO happen when there are bystanders.

[gejohnston]

18. read it in a physical book some time ago, not everything is online but

If those bystanders are standing around with their fingers up their asses during said attack, that makes them accessories and should be charged with such. Morally, they share guilt by not doing anything. Yes I said pacifism is immoral, especially if it is someone else being attacked.

Do you have a rational reason for supporting duty to retreat? This is what you are supporting in principle (state law may vary):

But it turns out that in a few states, it's illegal to use even nonlethal self-defense if you can safely retreat. The treatises report that this is a very small minority view; even the Model Penal Code, which firmly endorses not just a duty to retreat but also a duty to give in to certain threats as a limit on lethal self-defense, rejects a duty to retreat before using nonlethal self-defense. Still, it appears that Iowa and possibly Minnesota (plus perhaps a few other states) take this view.

This means that if someone threatens you in a public place — even with just a fistfight — you are not entitled to defend yourself, again even only with your fists, if you are able to retreat safely. Your legal right to stay where you want to stay can thus practically be constrained by any bully who threatens you with a fight, even if you think you could physically defend yourself. Someone doesn't like your being with a date of a different race (or of the same sex) and threatens to beat you up if you don't leave a bar (or a street corner)? You have to leave, or if you stay and he starts beating you you would be guilty of assault if you defend yourself. Someone is just a bully who wants to have the fun of making you do what he asks (which is to get away from him)? Same situation.

http://volokh.com/posts/1184614177.shtml

[krispos42]

12. Seems to me that if there are a lot of bystanders around...

...there wouldn't generally be a crime being committed.

[Tesha]

16. you're kidding, right? (nt)

[krispos42]

17. No, I don't think so

I mean, do criminals routinely just begin beating victims on a crowded sidewalk?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[krispos42]

26. Thanks. I'll add it to my stockpile of DUzies n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

24. As a general statement that is true.

Usually the criminal will attempt to isolate the victim before he attacks. With good situational awareness you can spot when someone is attempting to isolate you and be prepared. You can't shoot until he makes an overt move, but you can already have your hand in your pocket and on the gun.

Retreat, often called "escape", is the best tactical option if you can. But sometimes you can't realistically escape and the law prevents over zealous prosecutors from Monday morning quarterbacking a decision that you had to make in a couple of seconds or less.

[aikoaiko]

8. Calling the Castle Law legalized murder is ridiculous even for you.

If the state can prove that the claim of self-defense is not true then it the state can effectively prosecute.

The law does not legalize murder in anyway.

[GreenStormCloud]

11. Stand-Your-Ground law had not been a problem in the states that have it.

Castle Law and Stand-Your-Ground law are not the same thing. Castle Law only applies to the home. Stand Your Ground Law applies to being out in public.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lawodevolution]

13. Why are the "authorized" ones so afraid of rights and the ability of individuals to use self defense

Do they want us to depend on them for our safety? Is it about job security?

[Abq_Sarah]

22. It's more about control

[melm00se]

21. this is the "blood running in the streets"

objection.

Is there any objective empirical evidence showing an increase in murder rates and/or in states that have such laws?

or

Is this just fear-mongering by anti-gun groups and authoritarian government folks?

[Taitertots]

27. Jpak: Why do you think that it should be illegal to stop people from hurting/killing you?

Why do you think people who kill someone trying to rape them should face criminal prosecution?

I have a right to defend myself anywhere I have a right to be.

[jpak]

29. You also have the right to remain silent

If stupid gun fantasies go awry

yup

[PavePusher]

30. You also have the Right to remain silent....

but not, apparently, the ability.

:eyes:

[Taitertots]

31. Why do you think rape victims should be prosecuted for trying to defend themselves?

The only thing this law does is protect people who can prove that they acted in self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Why do you think victims should be prosecuted for fighting back against legitimate threats to their life?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.