The (GOP/NRA) deadly force bill is wrongheaded (NH)

[jpak]

http://www.sentinelsource.com/opinion/columnists/guest/the-deadly-force-bill-is-wrongheaded/article_3d92b433-70de-5f93-b5ee-9aac687f1bbf.htm

Tlhe deadly force bill is wrongheaded

When the New Hampshire Legislature reconvenes this fall to take up the governor’s vetoes, one of the bills that appears almost certain to be overridden is SB 88, which would broaden an individual’s right to use deadly force to defend oneself in public.

The House of Representatives approved the final version of the bill, 283-89, while the Senate followed suit on a 19-5 vote — both comfortably beyond the two-thirds majorities lawmakers need to override Gov. John Lynch’s veto.

Just because they can, however, doesn’t mean they should. This bill is as unnecessary as it is unwise, and we urge our lawmakers to sustain the governor’s veto when it comes time to vote.

<more>

[ileus]

1. Let's hope the people win out over the veto...

[jpak]

2. "the people" in this case would be Free Staters, Teabaggers & Assorted GOP-douchebags

The Democratic governor did the right thing

yup

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Tesha]

6. Funny -- based on the vote tallies it looks like it's just the Republicans bashing the Democratic...

...Governor while paying fealty to the NRA.

Tesha

[Philippine expat]

7. If they over ride the veto

the people DO win

[Old Codger]

3. Not working

What I got when attempting to go to link.


Element not valid

The element requested is either not valid or does not exist.

[ManiacJoe]

24. The file extension should be ".html" not ".htm".

[GreenStormCloud]

5. Here is the text of the bill.

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven

AN ACT relative to physical force in defense of a person, relative to producing or displaying a firearm or other means of self-defense, and relative to eliminating minimum sentencing and adding civil immunity for certain firearm use.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Physical Force in Defense of Person. Amend RSA 627:4, III to read as follows:

III. A person is not justified in using deadly force on another to defend himself or herself or a third person from deadly force by the other if he or she knows that he or she and the third person can, with complete safety:

(a) Retreat from the encounter, except that he or she is not required to retreat if he or she is within his or her dwelling , its curtilage, or anywhere he or she has a right to be, and was not the initial aggressor; or

(b) Surrender property to a person asserting a claim of right thereto; or

(c) Comply with a demand that he or she abstain from performing an act which he or she is not obliged to perform; nor is the use of deadly force justifiable when, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, the person has provoked the use of force against himself or herself in the same encounter<.>; or

(d) If he or she is a law enforcement officer or a private person assisting the officer at the officer’s direction and was acting pursuant to RSA 627:5, the person need not retreat.

2 Sentences and Limitations. Amend RSA 651:2, II-g to read as follows:

II-g. If a person is convicted of a felony, an element of which is the possession, use or attempted use of a deadly weapon, and the deadly weapon is a firearm, such person may be sentenced to a maximum term of 20 years' imprisonment in lieu of any other sentence prescribed for the crime.

3 New Section; Justification; Civil Immunity. Amend RSA 627 by inserting after section 1 the following new section:

627:1-a Civil Immunity. A person who uses force in self-protection or in the protection of other persons pursuant to RSA 627: 4, in the protection of premises and property pursuant to RSA 627: 7 and 627:8, in law enforcement pursuant to RSA 627:5, or in the care or welfare of a minor pursuant to RSA 627:6, is justified in using such force and shall be immune from civil liability for personal injuries sustained by a perpetrator which were caused by the acts or omissions of the person as a result of the use of force. In a civil action initiated by or on behalf of a perpetrator against the person, the court shall award the person reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs, including but not limited to, expert witness fees, court costs, and compensation for loss of income.

4 Justification; Definitions. Amend RSA 627: 9 , IV to read as follows:

IV. “Non-deadly force” means any assault or confinement which does not constitute deadly force. The act of producing or displaying a weapon shall constitute non-deadly force.

5 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.

VETOED: July 13, 2011

Looks pretty reasonable to be. Stand-Your-Ground and Civil Immunity are the main elements. Stiff sentencing for some firearms crimes. The veto will be easily overridden.

[iverglas]

8. the actual question is

What is UNreasonable about this:

1 Physical Force in Defense of Person. Amend RSA 627:4, III to read as follows:

III. A person is not justified in using deadly force on another to defend himself or herself or a third person from deadly force by the other if he or she knows that he or she and the third person can, with complete safety:

(a) Retreat from the encounter.

I'd prefer to see something along the lines of "reasonably believes that he or she ... cannot, with complete safety, retreat from the encounter".

And of course the more classical formulation broadens it to "otherwise avert serious injury or death" or words to that effect, i.e. retreat, call for help from someone else ...

Authorizing the killing of a human being WHERE THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE is just barbaric and immoral and flatly contrary to every vaguely modern philosophy of human rights, in particular LIBERAL philosophy -- and EVERY SINGLE PERSON READING THIS KNOWS THAT AS WELL AS I DO.

Which is precisely why not one single person whom I have asked to identify the liberal / progressive / democratic / Democratic principle that supports their ugly blood lust and applause for impunity has ever answered that question.

It can't be answered.

The question is loaded with a false premise: that impunity and blood lust are consistent with any of those principles.

[gejohnston]

13. not being a lawyer

it almost seems like hair splitting. I do not think it promotes blood lust or any such thing, because it will not change human nature. Most people, will still retreat if possible. From a legal stand point, "know" is black and white. If I am sitting in my car, and some thug walks toward me with a knife because I witnessed him committing crime, I know putting it in gear and flooring it will be the better choice. Even if I didn't have to, I would. If I were on foot, I may not know if I can out run the guy. Can I "reasonably believe" I can? That is more gray. If I decide I reasonably believe I can not, then I have to pay for a lawyer because some DA, who was not there, disagrees that I "reasonably believed" and decides he wants to run for higher office by "being tough on vigilantism".



How is it liberal or democratic? It is about standing up to those who preferring to prey on individuals and destroying communities for their own profit. When they do it with a brief case, you do this
http://www.winknews.com/Local-Florida/2011-06-03/Tables-Turn-Deputies-and-movers-show-up-at-bank-to-seize-property-for-homeowner-

When he breaks in with weapon, then you have to deal with that situation differently.

If we are talking about a desperate 99ner trying to feed his or her family hoping to pawn my TV, that is one thing. I would prefer they rip off the corporate criminals that created this mess. But the article and law is not talking about that.

[iverglas]

14. I already stated my problem with "know"

Knowledge can't be proved, really, so yes, that's not a proper requirement. To prove that one has a reasonable belief, well, that's a bit of a time-honoured standard.


If I ask a question, I am kind of asking for answers to that question, not answers to some made-up question, or just random thoughts.

What I asked was this:

Authorizing the killing of a human being WHERE THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE is just barbaric and immoral and flatly contrary to every vaguely modern philosophy of human rights, in particular LIBERAL philosophy -- and EVERY SINGLE PERSON READING THIS KNOWS THAT AS WELL AS I DO.

Which is precisely why not one single person whom I have asked to identify the liberal / progressive / democratic / Democratic principle that supports their ugly blood lust and applause for impunity has ever answered that question.

Authorizing the killing of a human being where there is an alternative -- how is THAT consistent with any of those various philosophies/platforms?

You say:

It is about standing up to those who preferring to prey on individuals and destroying communities for their own profit.

That is not an answer to anything I asked.

"It" in your statement is very plainly not equal to "Authorizing the killing of a human being WHERE THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE" in my statement.



typo fixed

[gejohnston]

16. mostly because

it is not supporting any blood lust, so your framing is nonsense. Any alternative or a viable alternative? I said what it is really about. If it does not fit in your frame, that is not my problem.

[iverglas]

17. let's simplify it

Authorizing the killing of a human being WHERE THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE is just barbaric and immoral and flatly contrary to every vaguely modern philosophy of human rights, in particular LIBERAL philosophy.

Refute that statement, citing a liberal or progressive or democratic or Democratic principle in support of your argument.

All I have asked anyone to whom I have put the question is to connect THEIR OWN STATEMENT with any such principle.

Their own statements, in every instance, go beyond approval of authorizing the killing of a human being where there is an alternative. Way beyond.

But we'll settle for that.

Find me any such principle that is consistent with authorizing the killing of one person by another person where there is an alternative.


Any alternative or a viable alternative? I said what it is really about.

Very sincerely, I care not a whit what you said it is really about. I asked a question. If you don't want to answer it, that's your choice. Pretending you answered it by saying something that has nothing to do with the question, well, that's your choice too. Have at it.

[gejohnston]

25. very sincerely

that is the best way to answer a question based on what to me is a false premise. Your question seems to be based on a binary world view. Based on your writings, I get the impression that people are either right wing or progressive. I am incapable if thinking in such binary terms which also means that I have a hard time with yes or no kinds of answers.

Political philosophies are like religions. Each is divided in various sects or branches based difference of opinion on a couple of different issues but agree on the important elements of what it is to be a (fill in the blank).

Expecting one to flee one's home or face prosecution the state and/or law suit by your attacker is hardly moral or civilized. But that is what duty to flee is. Being expected to give deference to thugs, especially if the alternative is not viable in the situation, is closer to law of the jungle barbarism. That is part of my liberalism. That is the best answer I can give. How you accept it is up to you.

The most important lesson I learned is that the only way to really understand something, you have to first accept it on its own terms.

[iverglas]

26. that's a nonsense

Expecting one to flee one's home or face prosecution the state and/or law suit by your attacker is hardly moral or civilized.

And YOU are the one setting up the false dilemma.

Expecting one to flee one's home WHERE ONE CAN DO SO IN SAFETY or face prosecution IS EXACTLY moral and civilized. That is exactly what it is.


Based on your writings, I get the impression that people are either right wing or progressive.

Oddly enough, that's pretty much how it works. You do get blind spots. My uncle is a social democrat in many ways, but votes Conservative because he converted to Baptist-ism when he married at 18, and 60 years later, he believes that Stephen Harper wants to outlaw abortion.

So my uncle is stupid to believe such things, and yes, he's had 60 years to get over the appalling evil that his church has drummed into him about women's rights. Probably if I had a week in a locked room with him, I could do something with him. But right now, he's made his choices, and he's on the side of evil, so that's that.

If he held those views about abortion and voted NDP, I would have no problem with him. People's superstitions and personal opinions aren't my concern unless they try to influence public opinion and public policy.


Being expected to give deference to thugs, especially if the alternative is not viable in the situation, is closer to law of the jungle barbarism.

No, your "defining" respect for fundamental human rights as "give deference to thugs" is evidence that the law of the jungle is precisely what you believe in -- the jungle where there are no human rights.

Your throwing "especially if the alternative is not viable in the situation" is just you being less than candid, since you absolutely know that no one, not any person, has ever suggested that anyone has any duty to expose themselves to harm. You know this, you know that the principle that a person may not use force against another person is qualified by permitting the use of force where necessary. "if the alternative is not viable" means that it is necessary to use force. So you know that what you have said is a complete, 180 degree misrepresentation of the position you pretend to be arguing against.


That is part of my liberalism.

No. Neither claiming moral justification for using force against another person where it is not necessary nor misrepresenting the opposing position is "liberal".


The most important lesson I learned is that the only way to really understand something, you have to first accept it on its own terms.

I'm sorry, but that means absolutely nothing, either to me or objectively.

The only way for me to understand what, Nazism, is to accept it on its own terms? What could that possibly mean?


typo fixed

[gejohnston]

29. not even

Expecting one to flee one's home WHERE ONE CAN DO SO IN SAFETY or face prosecution IS EXACTLY moral and civilized. That is exactly what it is.

Only in your less than humble opinion.

[iverglas]

31. as I said in the thread I referred you to

it has precisely bugger all to do with my opinion. It is the "opinion" on which there is a human consensus. It is the "opinion" expressed in things like the 5th amendment to your Constitution, the Univeral Declaration of Human Rights, the constitutional Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the foundational documents of the majority of countries on earth: the inherent, inalienable right to life.

I happen to be on board with that consensus.

You apparently aren't.

Neither your opinion nor mine matters, it's just that mine is identical to human consensus, and yours is some weirdness apparently deriving from a recipe calling for excessive testosterone, abject self-interest and total ignorance of several centuries of human history.

[gejohnston]

33. The difference is

if you put that definition of moral and civilized behavior that in the NDP platform, the typical middle of the road voter is going to say screw you.

[iverglas]

35. listen

That definition of moral and civilized behaviour is in the Criminal Code of Canada, as it was in the common law we all share before that. The thread I directed to you about the law journal article showed a quote from Blackstone saying the same thing.

In point of fact, the Harper government is trying to screw with it, as it is trying to screw with every single other aspect of Canadian life, and it may get pandering support from other parties. We shall see.

[TPaine7]

36. To call that bullshit would insult the product of self-respecting cattle the world over.

gejohnston (1000+ posts) Sun Aug-21-11 02:14 AM
Response to Reply #26

29. not even
Expecting one to flee one's home WHERE ONE CAN DO SO IN SAFETY or face prosecution IS EXACTLY moral and civilized. That is exactly what it is.

Only in your less than humble opinion.

iverglas (1000+ posts) Sun Aug-21-11 02:43 AM
Response to Reply #29

31. as I said in the thread I referred you to
it has precisely bugger all to do with my opinion. It is the "opinion" on which there is a human consensus. It is the "opinion" expressed in things like the 5th amendment to your Constitution, the Univeral Declaration of Human Rights, the constitutional Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the foundational documents of the majority of countries on earth: the inherent, inalienable right to life.

I happen to be on board with that consensus.

You apparently aren't.

Neither your opinion nor mine matters, it's just that mine is identical to human consensus, and yours is some weirdness apparently deriving from a recipe calling for excessive testosterone, abject self-interest and total ignorance of several centuries of human history.

No it is not. You may spin all you like, but the 5th Amendment does not require a person "to flee one's home WHERE ONE CAN DO SO IN SAFETY or face prosecution." I understand that your ignorance of US law is profound to say the least. You have demonstrated that fact on this board innumerable times--often with my kind assistance. But it is hard to believe that even you are this ignorant.

Produce any evidence that any competent court (and no, a clueless, condescending Canadian blowhard who thinks she can instruct a nation on its own law is not a court) has ever held this to be the case (without being overturned). Forget a legally binding holding; produce evidence that any competent court at the federal appeals court or higher level has ever said such a thing in dicta.

To claim that the 5th Amendment requires a person "to flee one's home WHERE ONE CAN DO SO IN SAFETY or face prosecution" is so appallingly ignorant and legally illiterate that I have a hard time believing you actually meant to say what you said. Surely this was another "mistyping"--like the time you smeared the abolitionists who authored the Fourteenth Amendment, right?

The Fifth Amendment, according to its own text, the text of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, and the historical record, is a limit on government power. By what logic can even you justify your drivel?

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

You're running wild, iverglas. Do you actually think no one will call you on this crap?

[TPaine7]

37. Beware ignorant blowhards, bearing insults

The “Duty to retreat” has never been the law under the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, nor is there any way that a person remotely knowledgeable in US law could conclude that it was. Here is a summary of the VERY FIRST CASE on the "duty to retreat" from THE LAND OUTSIDE OF THE DEFENDANT'S HOUSE:

1. Development of the Bright-Line Rule by the United States Supreme Court
The earliest United States Supreme Court case which addressed the issue was Beard v. United States.19 In Beard, the defendant was found guilty of manslaughter but appealed the jury instruction on the law of self-defense.20 The case involved a dispute between the defendant and the Jones brothers over possession of a cow.21 The Jones brothers repeatedly came to the Beard farm to try to take the cow.22 Beard thwarted each attempt and told them he would only relinquish possession of the cow if a court determined that Edward Jones was entitled to the cow.23 After threatening Beard’s life, the Jones brothers once again came to the land to try to take the cow.24 Beard once again confronted the brothers.25 During the confrontation, Will Jones began walking briskly at Beard, threatening him and keeping his hand hidden in his pocket.26 Will walked closer and made a movement to remove his hand from his pocket.27 Beard feared the pocket contained a gun, and in fact it did.28 Before Jones could remove his pistol from his pocket Beard struck him in the head with a shotgun.29 Will Jones later died from this wound.30 The issue before the Court was whether the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that Beard could not claim self-defense if he could have safely retreated from the situation.31 The Court held that the trial court had improperly instructed the jury on self defense, stating the following:

In our opinion, the court below erred in holding that the accused, while on his premises, outside of his dwelling house, was under a legal duty to get out of the way, if he could, of his assailant, who, according to one view of the evidence, had threatened to kill the defendant, in execution of that purpose had armed himself with a deadly weapon, with that weapon concealed in upon his person went to the defendant’s premises, despite the warning of the latter to keep away, and by word and act indicated his purpose to attack the accused. The defendant was where he had the right to be, when the deceased advanced upon him in a threatening manner, and with a deadly weapon; and if the accused did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm, he was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground, and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such way and with such force as, under all the circumstances, he, at the moment, honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, were necessary to save his own life, or to protect himself from great bodily injury.32

This holding showed that the Supreme Court did not recognize any common law duty to retreat, not only from one’s home, but also from the land surrounding that home.
http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/119767.PDF

That has never changed as regards the federal Constitution on a "duty to retreat"--though I concede that there may be less enlightened states the laws of which agree with Your Sophistry and require people to retreat from their own houses and property in the face of deadly threats. These state laws should be overturned under the unanimously recognized (by the Supreme Court of the Unites States) right to self-defense.

The fact that the lower court thought like many backward, pre-Enlightenment locales--blame and micro-analyze the victim while carefully protecting the person who threatened his life--is sad. The victim of the attack thought (with good cause and in point of fact, correctly) that the perpetrator had a gun in his pocket. The court, like many European and Canadian blowhards, apparently thought that the man attacked on his own property had a duty to attempt to outrun the bullet of the deceased assailant. It never ceases to amaze me what passes for logic under the Gun Control Reality Distortion Field.

Your ignorance, iverglas, is profound.

[krispos42]

21. I'm confused over section 627:4 IIIc

III. A person is not justified in using deadly force on another to defend himself or herself or a third person from deadly force by the other if he or she knows that he or she and the third person can, with complete safety:

(c) Comply with a demand that he or she abstain from performing an act which he or she is not obliged to perform; nor is the use of deadly force justifiable when, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, the person has provoked the use of force against himself or herself in the same encounter;

What does the underlined part mean, exactly?


I'm confuzeled.

[saras]

9. If you want to end this stuff FAST, get progressives to start defending themselves with force

You'll see it outlawed so fast it will make your dead ancestors spin in their graves.

But as long as it's right-wingers doing the shooting, then the more shootings the better. I mean, if the country is really as full of criminals as they believe, they've got one hell of a lot of killing to do before things get reasonably safe.

from the article:

"Currently, state law permits residents to use deadly force only if threatened on their property. Otherwise, they are required to pursue other options before turning to deadly force. In other words, the use of deadly force should be an absolute last resort."

"Under the bill introduced this session by Sen. David Boutin, R-Hooksett, residents would be permitted to use deadly force whenever they felt their lives were in jeopardy, whether it was in their home or “anywhere he or she has a right to be.”"

"The bill also deletes the minimum mandatory sentencing requirement for felony convictions involving a firearm and removes the act of displaying a weapon from the definition of “deadly force.”"

According to the governor, “It would allow the use of deadly force on street corners, in shopping malls, public parks, and in retail stores. Drug dealers and other felons who brandish weapons will be further emboldened to use their weapons, while prosecution of those criminals will be made even more difficult because of this bill’s expansion of the right to use deadly force.”"

To me, the critical part of the law - the crux of the whole thing - is "use deadly force whenever they felt their lives were in jeopardy" - that is to say, you have the right to kill someone based on your feelings, no matter how irrational and unjustified they are. If you *felt* that your life was in danger, then you get to shoot. If you feel threatened by people of color (many racist whites do - the very proximity of a minority makes them uncomfortable) - well, it's open season.

And let's not even IMAGINE someone who feels threatened by homosexuality.

[ileus]

12. so you're saying repukes only want other repukes to defend themselves?

somehow I doubt they'd mind help taking down criminals.

[gejohnston]

15. This looks like a typical SYG or Castle law

and, to the best of my knowledge, it has not been an issue. When the police show up and investigate, if the evidence does not show self defense, then you are still screwed. The way I read it, you still have some duty to flee unless inside of your home.

[iverglas]

19. your "knowledge" doesn't come into it

To start with "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" are completely different and unrelated.

This bill appears to be modified "stand your ground". It eliminates the "duty to retreat" only when a person is in their own home/on their own property. Not in a public place, for instance.

By muddling "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" you do no service to anyone, including yourself.

In the case of "stand your ground", yes, either the police/prosecutor or ultimately a court would have to be satisfied that you actually acted in self-defence.

In the case of "castle doctrine" -- and how many times do some people need to be told this? -- there is NO requirement that you have acted in self-defence. The police MAY NOT investigate whether you acted in self-defence, and the prosecution MAY NOT lead evidence to show that you did not act in self-defence.

"Castle doctrine" says that as long as you are in your home and believed that someone had entered it unlawfully/forcefully, you ARE PRESUMED to have feared injury/death when you used force against that person, including killing them.

NOTHING can rebut that presumption. The police may know that the person you killed was a 10-year-old who had broken in a window and fallen asleep in front of your TV, but they MAY NOT charge you with anything, and if somehow they miss the broken window, once you prove that at your trial, the prosecution MAY NOT try to convict you.

Once it is proved that the person forcibly and illegally entered your home, YOU MAY KILL that person even if they are 10 years old and asleep. Yes. That is what "castle doctrine" laws say.

This really is not that difficult to understand. Really it isn't.

If you or anyone else wants to disagree, then you or someone else needs to point to the part of the law in question that proves you right. I have pointed to the parts of the law in question that prove me right over and over and over and over.

[gejohnston]

23. you sure about that

"Castle doctrine" says that as long as you are in your home and believed that someone had entered it unlawfully/forcefully, you ARE PRESUMED to have feared injury/death when you used force against that person, including killing them.

NOTHING can rebut that presumption. The police may know that the person you killed was a 10-year-old who had broken in a window and fallen asleep in front of your TV, but they MAY NOT charge you with anything, and if somehow they miss the broken window, once you prove that at your trial, the prosecution MAY NOT try to convict you.

Once it is proved that the person forcibly and illegally entered your home, YOU MAY KILL that person even if they are 10 years old and asleep. Yes. That is what "castle doctrine" laws say.

This really is not that difficult to understand. Really it isn't.

If you or anyone else wants to disagree, then you or someone else needs to point to the part of the law in question that proves you right. I have pointed to the parts of the law in question that prove me right over and over and over and over.

You have? I missed your posts one that. The state laws I read does not excuse killing a sleeping ten year old or any such thing. As I understand it, stand your ground and castle doctrine is basically the same concept, the only real difference is where you are. In the US, when duty to retreat includes retreating from your home. Castle doctrine simply takes away that duty only in home and sometimes car.

[iverglas]

27. No. Simply no. N. O.

In the US, when duty to retreat includes retreating from your home. Castle doctrine simply takes away that duty only in home and sometimes car.

No. No, that is not what "castle doctrine" laws do. No. However many times someone here or all over the bleeding internet pretends that this is what they do, and tries to dupe others into thinking that is what they do, as you may have been duped, that is not what they do. Not.

They do EXACTLY what I said they do.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=125237&mesg_id=125237

It isn't simple and it isn't easy reading -- for the actual simple reason that the legislation is a complete morass and has to be carefully dissected to extract its meaning. Give it a shot.

[gejohnston]

28. wrong and

propagandists like David Hemenway do not count.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

[iverglas]

30. I have no fucking clue what "wrong" means

I'm not going to wade through a wikipedia article about something I am already so intimately familiar with that I could write the thing.

Especially not one that says:

"This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards."

Apparently at one time the fool article stated that Canada has "castle law" and no "duty to retreat"; read the Discussion page.

The article is a complete piece of garbage.

I'm sorry, but ultimately you may not be able to understand the Florida-model legislation or the analysis and critique of it. I can suggest that you read the thread I offered and the paper it is about, but unfortunately I can't understand it for you.

[gejohnston]

34. your link is

no longer there. I was left what was copied and pasted. As soon as it started mentioning code of the west and other cliched buzz words, I started to tune out because it started sound like bullshit. Kind of like legally shooting sleeping ten year olds.

[ileus]

22. Excellent description...

[iverglas]

take shelter in any port in a storm if it saves the boat ...

... give public approval to any false nonsense if it advances the agenda ...

[GreenStormCloud]

18. Not true at all. Your "feelings" have to be realistic to the situation.

Try a different strawman.

[SteveM]

10. I don't see much unreasonable in the bill. nt

[ZombieHorde]

11. Your link is insulting your argument.

It says, "Element not valid."

[iverglas]

20. a link to make everybody happy

Damn, that was hard to find. Took less time than posting a whinging message about the bad link.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/opinioneditorials/929525-263/veto-should-stand-on-deadly-force-bill.html

Currently, state law permits residents to use deadly force only if threatened on their property. Otherwise, they are required to pursue other options before turning to deadly force. In other words, the use of deadly force should be an absolute last resort.

Under the bill introduced this session by Sen. David Boutin, R-Hooksett, residents would be permitted to use deadly force whenever they felt their lives were in jeopardy, whether it was in their home or “anywhere he or she has a right to be.”

The bill also deletes the minimum mandatory sentencing requirement for felony convictions involving a firearm and removes the act of displaying a weapon from the definition of “deadly force.”

... “SB 88, like the earlier bill, is a dramatic and unwarranted change in New Hampshire law that would legalize the inappropriate use of deadly force and jeopardize public safety,” Lynch wrote in his veto message.

“It would allow the use of deadly force on street corners, in shopping malls, public parks, and in retail stores. Drug dealers and other felons who brandish weapons will be further emboldened to use their weapons, while prosecution of those criminals will be made even more difficult because of this bill’s expansion of the right to use deadly force.”

Indeed. Who exactly is to say that a drug dealer did not act in self-defence, and stand their ground against that other drug dealer who threatened them?

It appears that NH law at present authorizes the use of force in public places -- but authorizes the use of "deadly force" in public places only where there is no alternative.

And damn me if I can figure out what any sane, civilized, moral person's objection to that is.

I'm not convinced that the bill posted in this thread is the entirety of what's in issue so I'm still not entirely clear on this ...

But I did find this bit interesting:

The bill also deletes the minimum mandatory sentencing requirement for felony convictions involving a firearm and removes the act of displaying a weapon from the definition of “deadly force.”

Not only are these gun militants not chanting the standard mantra of "enforce the existing gun laws" -- they're trying to repeal the existing gun laws!

:rofl:

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate