Uncategorized

Shoot-first law:unnecessary and dangerous

Who in their right mind would vote against self-defense?

In the North Carolina Senate, as it turns out, just two members: Katie Dorsett and Ed Jones. And that’s because their minds were right.

Sens. Dorsett and Jones mustered the courage and diligence to see through unfounded claims from sponsors of SB 928, which was sold as a safeguard for self-defense.

This bill, however, has nothing to do with self-defense. North Carolinians, like all U.S. citizens, already have the right to protect themselves against an attack. Nowhere in the country is anyone being punished for acting in self-defense.

Instead, this “shoot first” law will legalize vigilantism. It provides shooters immunity from criminal prosecution or civil liability, even if they kill or injure an innocent bystander or the wrong person.

SB 928 is a tragedy waiting to happen. Will it be the social worker making an unannounced visit? Or maybe it’ll be the postal carrier, or a volunteer distributing fliers.

Let’s hope House members will see through the rhetoric and recognize unnecessary and dangerous legislation when they see it. 

9 Comments

  1. DR

    May 22, 2009 at 11:36 am

    Ms. Kolar,

    Unlike, I assume, many of your readers I looked at the text of the actual bill. You say the bill has nothing to do with self defense. This is patently untrue. The common name of the bill is the “Castle Law”. Paragraph, 14-51.2 very specifically lays out the conditions when defensive force including deadly force may be employed. In that paragraph is specifically states the persons against whom the defensive force is used either breaks in or is otherwise unlawfully in a persons home.

    Trust me, if the mail person kicks down my front door to deliver a letter, he or she may very well get shot.

    Read the bill then maybe your comment would be more rational.

  2. James

    May 22, 2009 at 1:14 pm

    DR, you need to read the bill again. It extends far beyond the limitations of a person’s home.

  3. Jack

    May 22, 2009 at 5:09 pm

    DR

    Please read the bill again. “Home protection; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm; immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.” Immunity!

    “Dwelling. – A building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile [RV] or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, [GUN IN STATE & NATIONAL PARKS, church camp, retreats] and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.” [HOTELS/MOTELS]

    This bill is so wrong on so many levels.

  4. Dumped on

    May 23, 2009 at 3:53 pm

    Wonderful protection for the law abiding citizen. Hopefully when a few of the criminal offenders and often repeat offenders get a bullit to the head the rest will think twice before preying on the civilized.
    Of course some liberal out there will think it is inhumane and we should just stand there and let the criminal have what we have.
    Oh and I keep having to ask “how’s all that hope and change working out for ya.”
    Please pass this important legislation.

  5. Dumped on

    May 23, 2009 at 3:56 pm

    We had a homeowner here that shot the criminal low life scum that was taking his hard earned property, and instead of killing him, shot him in the leg. The dirt bag was shooting back at the time. The scub bag sued from his wheel chair and won. Yea we need a law like this.

  6. Steve Harrison

    May 24, 2009 at 11:10 am

    “The scub bag sued from his wheel chair and won.”

    Can you give us the particulars (when, where, who) of this case?

  7. Jack

    May 24, 2009 at 4:28 pm

    Has anyone thought about how “low life scum” will be able to use S928, if it becomes law, to gain immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action? Whether liberal or conservative just think about it. Plus, what does law enforcement think about S928?

  8. Dumped on

    May 25, 2009 at 3:06 pm

    I just have to respond again. If I’m having to deal with someone stealing my stuff then law enforcement already failed. I do not care about what law enforecement has to say on this bill. It protects the property owner more than the low life so it has my support.

  9. Ray

    August 5, 2009 at 1:26 pm

    Quoting Dumped on: “We had a homeowner here that shot the criminal low life scum that was taking his hard earned property, and instead of killing him, shot him in the leg. The dirt bag was shooting back at the time. The scum bag sued from his wheel chair and won.”

    This is why we need SB 928 (Castle Bill). First under current NC legislation one is not allowed to use “deadly force” (use of a firearm) to protect property. “The dirt bag was shooting back” implies that the homeowner fired first. Under current NC legislation the homeowner was in the wrong. If the homeowner had waited until he was shot at, he could legally have used deadly force (shot and killed the scum bag). Please read this bill and encourage your State Representatives to pass it.