Self-Defense or Excessive Force?
by TChris
Note: Jeralyn also posts about this here.
If we can launch a preemptive strike against a country that has no weapons of mass destruction simply because (thanks to the administration's propaganda) we feel threatened, why shouldn't we be able to preemptively kill neighbors who seem like they might be threatening? A growing number of states are enacting self-defense laws that eliminate an already eroding common law principle that the use of deadly force in self-defense is permitted only after attempts to retreat from the dangerous situation have failed.
Supporters call them "stand your ground" laws. Opponents call them "shoot first" laws.
Many states have copied a Florida law that permits the use of deadly force, with no duty to retreat, by a person who reasonably believes the force is necessary to prevent great bodily harm or "the commission of a forcible felony." A fear of imminent harm is presumptively reasonable if deadly force is used against a person who forcefully enters the defending person's residence or car. Persons who use deadly force under those circumstances are immune from arrest and prosecution (and from civil liability).
< States Move to Expand Self-Defense Laws | Condi Rice Makes Vanity Fair's Best Dressed List > |