No, it would protect the not so law- abiding
TLouis Tobin
wo bills pending in the General Assembly allow a person to “stand their ground” and use force in self-defense. People already have a right to defend themselves, a concealed handgun from a first-degree misdemeanor to a minor misdemeanor. Sounds reasonable. Let’s dig deeper.
Law-abiding individuals, those with a concealed carry license, are protected under current law. The law clearly states that the penalty for carrying a concealed handgun does not apply to someone who has a valid license. Period. So the bill reduces criminal penalties for individuals without a license, those illegally carrying concealed handguns. Protection for the not so law-abiding.
More troublesome is a provision in House Bill 228. Currently, a person can be acquitted if they can show that it is more likely than not that they used force in self-defense. This is the affirmative defense of selfdefense, a legal benefit to those who justifiably use self-defense. The provision in House Bill 228 provides that this benefit is not available to someone who uses force during the commission of a “felony offense of violence.” Sounds reasonable. Let’s dig deeper.
“Offense of violence” is clearly defined in the law. It includes violent felonies like murder, rape, and kidnapping. It does not include some other very serious offenses like compelling prostitution or drug trafficking. So the bill benefits the pimp who claims selfdefense when he shoots the woman who he is pimping because she fought back. It benefits the drug trafficker who shoots his supplier in a confrontation over money. Protection for the not so law-abiding.
Finally, the bills require the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person’s use of force against another was not self-defense. This is in addition to the current requirement that the prosecution prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Sounds reasonable. Current law, however, allows a person to be acquitted if they can show that it is more likely than not that they acted in self-defense. So the legislation benefits individuals who most likely were not acting in self-defense. It benefits individuals in some criminal activity. It benefits the drug supplier who shoots his drug trafficker to get his money and then claims self-defense. Protection for the not so law-abiding.
Proponents claim that current law makes someone guilty until they prove their innocence. This is far from the truth. The prosecution must always prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Proponents claim that the bill protects average Joe when he uses force to protect himself or his family. But the proponents cannot point to any cases where current law has caused a problem. This is because prosecutors aren’t out to get average Joe. We believe in justifiable self-defense too.
We are out to get drug dealers, pimps and people illegally carrying concealed handguns. Getting them off our streets makes us all safer. These bills will make this more difficult. Ultimately, the public should trust that our prosecutors have the public’s best interests at heart. We want to protect the public from the not so law-abiding, not offer them legal loopholes that benefit crime.