In 2007, Missouri passed a "castle doctrine" law, whereby people whose homes, vehicles, etc. were being invaded would no longer have a duty to retreat from the intruder before employing lethal force in self-defense. As is inevitably the case with the passage of laws that expand recognition of the right to self-defense, Missouri saw dire predictions of out of control "vigilante violence." From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
Critics worried it would encourage vigilantism or be used as cover for someone who wanted to commit premeditated murder. Another scenario still feared by critics: What if the "intruder" is actually an innocent person who bursts into your home seeking medical aid?
"We call them 'shoot-first laws,'" said Brian Malte, director of state legislation for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Shoot first, ask questions later."
This is familiar territory for the Brady Campaign--remember them handing out fliers at Miami International Airport, to "warn" tourists, when Flordia's "stand your ground" law (which offers more comprehensive protections for the right to self-defense than castle doctrine laws do, in that it permits use of lethal force in self-defense without a duty to retreat anywhere a person is legally permitted to be) passed in 2005? Florida's precicted (by the Brady Campaign and pals) descent into mayhem never happened, of course, but that did nothing to stop the same anguished bleating over Missouri's law.
An Associated Press article, also carried by the Post-Dispatch, reminds us of what has been enabled by Missouri's law:
In 2008, a Kirksville woman fatally shot a man who violated a restraining order and crawled through her window. Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster decided that no crime was committed.
Presumably, Koster meant that no crime was committed by the woman who defended herself, because more than one law was certainly broken by the home invader who defied the restraining order.
According to the AP article, St. Louis now intends to cast a more critical eye on claimed self-defense shootings, despite the castle doctrine, with the circuit attorney's office now to conduct a "formal review" of such shootings. This is perhaps in response to the rise in the number of shootings in which the castle doctrine was invoked--seven in 2011, as compared to two in 2010.
It's hard to criticize efforts to determine whether or not claims of self-defense actually were self-defense, but one cannot help but wonder if the more intense scrutiny will also be applied to officer-involved shootings in St. Louis. From another Post-Dispatch article:
St. Louis officers fire their guns at a higher rate than those in many other metropolitan forces, according to a Post-Dispatch analysis.
And unlike many other departments, St. Louis has no third party checking the process.
The private citizens of St. Louis should, after all, not be the "Only Ones" expected to use lethal force only as a last resort.
Comments