Shoot First Laws
"Whenever any American's life is taken by another American unnecessarily - whether it is done in the name of the law or in the defiance of the law, by one man or a gang, in cold blood or in passion, in an attack of violence or in response to violence... the whole nation is degraded.
One of the best examples illustrating the gun rights movement's contempt for democratic institutions like the rule of law is its advocacy for "Shoot First" laws. On October 1, 2005, Florida became the first state to enact a "Shoot First" statute. Since that time, approximately 15 other states have adopted similar laws. - Robert F. Kennedy, "On the Mindless Menace of Violence," April 1968 Shoot First laws expand the right to use deadly force in self-defense beyond the home and eliminate a person's duty to retreat before resorting to use of such deadly force. Florida's version of the law states that "a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any…place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force,
Before the advent of Shoot First laws, if an individual was being attacked or someone was breaking into their home, that person was permitted to use as much force as was being used against them. This included a right to self-defense with a firearm. The gun lobby provided almost no evidence—anecdotal or otherwise—that victims of forcible felonies were being unduly prosecuted, or punished through civil litigation, for such conduct. Nonetheless, "Shoot first" laws now allow victims to use deadly force as a first resort. Leaving aside the public safety issues associated with encouraging untrained civilians to confront criminals with deadly force, the Shoot First statute is a naked assault on the rule of law, because it divests police and the courts of the power to settle disputes, substituting a bystander or crime victim's judgment for trial by jury and the presumption of innocence. This may increase freedom in the sense that it removes the threat of legal sanctions when a vigilante decides to shoot someone they think is a criminal, but it diminishes the rights of the person (innocent or guilty) who gets shot.
|
