The Des Moines Register ran an article today about HF 573 - the proposed "Stand Your Ground" or "Castle Doctrine" bill. The article was actually fairly well balanced and not at all slanted toward the anti-gun side of the story, which is not typical of firearms related articles in The Register. Kudos to the editorial staff over there. As usual, the anti-gun and anti-rights officials who didn't want to see "shall issue" become the norm in Iowa are quite upset about HF 573.
As expected, Polk County Attorney John Sarcone doesn't believe that this is good legislation:
“I’m trying to figure out what the evil is that we’re trying to protect against,” Polk County Attorney John Sarcone told the subcommittee. “This bill is so broad in terms of what it allows that it allows the criminals to take advantage.”
Domestic abusers, gang members and others, he said, could use the proposed law to argue that their violent acts were committed in response to a perceived threat and thus justified and protected under the law.
As we will see shortly when we examine the plain language explanation of the bill, the requirements to be covered are tightly focused. Just because someone is a gang member or domestic abuser doesn't mean that they don't have a right to defend their life - in specific circumstances. This legislation does not give someone the right to show up and start shooting.
It also didn't take long for the poster-child of the anti-gun movement - Johnson County Sheriff Lonnie Pulkrabek - to show up and spread his anti-gun and anti-rights FUD to Register readers. Here are the comments that he left for the readers:
The goal for shall issue was more law abiding citizens getting permits to carry. Mission accomplished. The unintended results were more non-lawabiding citizens carrying weapons. Mission accomplished. Many people with criminal records are flocking in to Sheriff's Offices to get permits.
I would enjoy hearing more about the citizens with criminal records who are "flocking" to the Sheriff's Offices to get permits. I would ask Sheriff Pulkrabek to produce proof of this in verifiable statistics, but he has never been able to do so in the past. I doubt that he would be able to do so now.
Now the NRA and gun advocates are going to give the criminals a new tool It is called stand your ground. A great way to get by with murder. Kill someone, no witnesses, therefore report to the police you felt threatened, that makes is justified now and no criminal or civil sanctions.
The legislators need to hear from people on this. The NRA will continue to put an enormous amount of pressure and $$$ into Iowa on this issue.
Tell them vote NO on stand your ground legislation. The law already gives you protection.
And:
Now that they NRA has shall issue, they now want to make it easier to get by with killing someone and make it so the person cannot be held accountable both civilly and criminally.
Since Sheriff Pulkrabek (and others) have a difficult time reading the bill and understanding its intent, I'm going to take the plain language explanation of the bill and present it here for everyone to read and hopefully understand. I'm not going to present the wording of the legislation, because Rep. Windschitl has already said that will be changed to tighten up the bill. But the explanation will probably remain the same (or very close to the same). The highlighted sections are mine.
The bill provides that a person may use reasonable force, including deadly force, and a person has no duty to retreat from any place at which the person is lawfully present, and has a right to stand the person’s ground, and meet force with force, if the person believes reasonable force, including deadly force, is necessary under the circumstances to prevent death or serious injury to oneself or a third party, or to prevent the commission of a violent felony.
In other words, this legislation will only be valid if the person who uses deadly force is lawfully present. A burglar cannot hide behind it. Someone breaking a no-contact order cannot hide behind it. A robber cannot hide behind it.
The bill provides that a person may be wrong in the estimation of the danger or the force necessary to repel the danger as long as there is a reasonable basis for the belief and the person acts reasonably in the response to that belief.
The person who uses deadly force might over-estimate the danger to himself or the third party. But so long as he can articulate the reason for his actions, and he acts reasonably, he can avoid prosecution. If someone knocks on his door and tries to sell him a magazine subscription, and he's had a bad day so he shoots the solicitor, that's not reasonable. He would be guilty of murder.
The bill provides that a threat to cause serious injury or death by the production or brandishing of a deadly weapon, is not deadly force, as long as the actions of the person are objectively reasonable and limited to creating an expectation that the person may use deadly force to defend oneself, another, or as otherwise authorized by law.
Brandishing is normally a crime. This bill would permit brandishing only if it were necessary to defend a life.
The bill creates presumptions for the justifiable use of deadly force in certain circumstances. Under the bill, a person is presumed to be justified in using deadly force if the person reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to avoid injury or risk to one’s life or safety or the life or safety of another under the following circumstances: the person against whom force is used is unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully or forcefully entered and is present within a dwelling, place of business or employment, or occupied vehicle of the person using force; or the person against whom force is used is removing or attempting to remove another person against the other person’s will from a dwelling, place of business or employment, or occupied vehicle of the person using force. In addition, the person using force must know or have reason to believe that the aforementioned circumstances are occurring or have occurred.
I'm not sure what broad circumstances are being referred to by the Polk County Attorney, but these look fairly tight.
The presumption of the use of justifiable deadly force under the bill does not apply in the following circumstances: the person against whom the force is used is a lawful resident of the dwelling, or has a right to be in the place of business or employment, or occupied vehicle of the person using force, and there is not a protective or no contact order in place against the person against whom force is used; the person against whom force is used is removing a child, grandchild, or other person in the lawful custody or lawful guardianship of the person; the person using defensive force is engaged in or attempting to escape from a crime or is using a dwelling, place of business or employment, or occupied vehicle to further a crime; or the person against whom force is used is a peace officer who has entered or is attempting to enter a dwelling, place of business or employment, or occupied vehicle in the lawful performance of the peace officer’s official duties, and the person using force knows or reasonably should know that the person who has entered or is attempting to enter is a peace officer.
All very tight standards on when use of deadly force is NOT justified. This seems very straightforward.
The bill provides that a person who is unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully or forcefully entered and is present within a dwelling, place of business or employment, or occupied vehicle of another, is presumed to present an imminent risk of unlawful deadly force to any person lawfully present in the dwelling, place of business or employment, or occupied vehicle. The bill also provides that a person who uses reasonable force shall be immune from any criminal prosecution or civil action for using such force, unless the person against whom such force is used is a peace officer acting within the scope of the officer’s duties and the peace officer discloses the officer’s identity, the person knows or reasonably should know that the person is a peace officer, or the peace officer is involved in an undercover investigation. Under the bill, a law enforcement agency shall not arrest a person for using force unless it determines there is probable cause that the force was unlawful under Code chapter 704.
This is fairly black and white. It forces an arresting officer to hold the use of force up against Chapter 704 to determine if it was authorized or not.
The bill also provides that if a court or jury finds a person justified in using reasonable force under the circumstances, and the person is found not liable in a civil court, the person shall be awarded reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of any income, and reimbursement of any other expenses incurred as a result of being arrested and charged, to be paid by the civil plaintiff.
There is nothing wrong with this provision. Someone who is wrongfully arrested should expect to receive compensation for his time and trouble.
The bill also provides that a person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, in order to prevent or terminate the perpetration of a violent felony, if the person reasonably believes that a violent felony is being or will imminently be perpetrated. The bill defines “violent felony” to mean any felonious assault, murder, violent or forced sexual abuse, kidnapping, robbery, arson, or burglary.
Again, very straightforward and defined on what "violent felony" means.
So what is difficult to understand? What is so broad about this legislation that gang-bangers and other criminals will try to hide behind it to practice their trade?
This is one of the best comments posted, and it sums things up quite nicely:
I like the well informed citizen who said, "Why do I carry a gun? Because a cop is too heavy."
I don't fear you gun toters and the Castle Doctrine. I don't plan on entering your home uninvited, even if I do bring the beer. However, in states where it is now in effect we find that: Lawyers generally hate it because it cuts down on their market. Some County Sheriffs and prosecutors hate it because it cuts their opportunities to make political cases in an election year. But most city police like it because it just plain thins the herd.
Shall issue has been the norm in Iowa for a year. It was predicted that bad things would happen because of it, but like every other state that has shall issue, it passed and is functioning with nary a whimper. Now we're on the edge of bringing Iowa in line with the majority of the rest of the country when dealing with Stand Your Ground / Castle Doctrine legislation. This is not a new concept, and it has not proven to be an issue in the rest of the country. Does Mr. Sarcone and Sheriff Pulkrabek believe that Iowans are less sophisticated than citizens in the rest of the country? That's exactly what they are implying.
HF 573 is going to be heard in the full House Public Safety Committee on Tuesday, January 31. If you believe that you should have the right to defend your life witout fear of prosecution, contact the committee and tell them. Make plans to show up on to the meeting. Do not let a few who are afraid of what "might" happen keep your rights under the threat of criminal or civil litigation.
Comments