Needlessly unclear

Under current law, and with some exceptions, Adam can kill Bob if Adam reasonably believes, for example, that Bob is about to commit a felony involving force or violence. The main exception is that Adam cannot kill Bob if Adam can avoid the necessity of killing him by retreating, again with some caveats. The caveats are that Adam does not need to retreat if Adam cannot retreat safely; Adam does not need to retreat if he is in his own home; and Adam does not need to retreat if he is a cop or if he is helping a cop.

Section 2 of SB24 deletes the “necessity” exception. So the law will just say this: Adam can kill Bob if Adam reasonably believes, for example, that Bob is about to commit a felony involving force or violence. Then SB24 says there is no duty to retreat if conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are met. Does this mean there is a duty to retreat whenever any of the conditions is not met? SB24 doesn’t say.

SB24 changes the law that governs in what situations Arkansans are allowed to kill their fellow citizens. There should be no doubt about when the law applies and when it doesn’t apply. This kind of law should be perfectly clear about what it means. SB24 is not clear in its current form, and it should be rewritten until everyone can understand it.

Adam should not be required to hire a lawyer and consult a six-part checklist before deciding if he can use a gun to defend another person.

ANDREW THORNTON

Little Rock