Shoot First
Macon Telegraph, March 8, 2006
http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/14043018.htm
NRA pushing Georgia bill that strengthens deadly force laws
By Mike Billips and Phillip Ramati
A Georgia proposal to allow citizens to defend themselves with deadly force wherever they feel threatened is part of a campaign by the National Rifle Association in more than a dozen gun-friendly states in the West and South.
After winning a brawl with gun-control proponents in Florida last year, the NRA is pushing "castle doctrine" laws in 16 states, NRA spokeswoman Autumn Fogg said.
In states such as Georgia, where the state code already allows citizens to use deadly force to protect their homes and cars, the definition of "castle" is expanded to the entire public sphere.
"We want to make sure that the law is strengthened for the victim," Fogg said. "We want to make sure that the law is very clearly stated that citizens no longer have a duty to retreat."
Among the states with pending proposals, Senate Bill 396, which passed the Senate on March 2, would give Georgia one of the most expansive self-defense law in the country. It also makes those using legal self-defense free from civil suits by the person they used the force against.
Gun-control advocates believe Georgia's self-defense statute is already strong enough.
"We understand that self-defense is an important right and that deadly force is sometimes the result," said Alice Johnson, director of Georgians for Gun Safety. "But the concept that everywhere and anywhere is somebody's castle doesn't make any sense."
In most states where such laws are being debated, written laws or legal precedent include a presumption that citizens should always avoid using deadly force unless they have no other way to avoid death or serious injury.
Such a presumption in English Common Law led to the "castle doctrine" exception. Because people had no safer refuge than their home, or "castle," it was accorded that they could stand their ground there and meet force with any force they deemed necessary.
Georgia already has the castle doctrine written into the state code. Deadly force is generally limited to protection of life and limb, but exceptions are written for the home, auto and business. In those places, deadly force can be used to prevent a felony or if entry is made in a "violent and tumultuous manner."
In debating Senate Bill 396, its author said he knew of no cases where Georgians had been prosecuted in a way that would be barred under his bill. Sen. Greg Goggans, R-Douglas, said he was inspired by Florida's fight last year to provide immunity from prosecution for those who used deadly force in defense of their home.
"I was surprised to learn that Georgia already had a strong law," Goggans said. "This just makes it a little stronger."
A midstate prosecutor said he does not believe the change in the law would make much difference in the way self-defense cases are handled by juries here.
"Justification is a factually based defense," said Bibb County District Attorney Howard Simms. "This adds another level; there's no duty to retreat. I've read the bill; it doesn't say you have a right to shoot someone. It says if (shooting) is otherwise justified, then you don't have the duty to retreat. If there's an imminent threat, you don't have to walk away."
Bibb County Sheriff Jerry Modena said he's not sure what the bill would do.
"I'm a little confused on it," Modena said. "I wish several aspects had been clearer. For example, road rage; it seems like this actually gives some legitimacy to road rage. ... A person does not have the duty to retreat. What does that tell someone in a rage in their car? You have a duty almost to handle it yourself. I'd like to see more talk on this."
One of the biggest concerns Modena has is that many private citizens who own guns in Middle Georgia undergo little, if any, formal training in their use. Modena said Bibb County deputies undergo between 15 and 20 hours a year in the use of various methods of force, including guns.
"The training aspect is important," he said. "We spend hours training; when we fire, it's in a legal and responsible way. (The bill) mentions no training whatsoever.
"What we run up against at 3 a.m. and the light isn't good, and someone is holding a flashlight or something metallic that might look like a gun - you think they have a gun and just shoot. There's the moral aspect; dealing with that aspect, the moral problem (of shooting someone), that part concerns me. The insurance part concerns me."
Alan Goldman, who owns Arvin's Pawn Shop on Poplar Street, said he thinks it's a good bill for the most part. Though he buys and sells guns, he said he doesn't think people should have absolute free reign with them, so spelling it out in a law is a good thing.
"I think what it does is give people, if they have to use a firearm, more of a legal right to do that," he said. "It makes sense to me. Personally, now this is as a citizen and not as a firearms dealer, I think we have the right to protect ourselves. I don't think this will start a rash of people abusing it."
Because the Georgia proposal goes beyond other states' immunity laws, there are few examples from elsewhere to shed light on what its effect might be. Colorado passed a law 20 years ago, dubbed the "Make My Day" law, that is similar to Georgia's current law.
A Colorado Springs Gazette study showed that the law was invoked at least 13 times in El Paso County between 1985 and 2005.
In four of those cases, citizens defended themselves from intruders they didn't know, including a 77-year-old woman who shot a serial rapist after he forced his way into her home.
But in the majority of cases, the defense was used in cases where the people involved knew one another. In one case that went to trial last December, a man was acquitted after shooting another man in the back in his car, after a fight involving a group of people.
Colorado's Legislature is currently considering a law to extend the castle-doctrine immunity to business owners in their businesses.
In Wyoming, a bill similar to the Georgia proposal was scaled back to say that citizens still had a duty to retreat when they were outside their home. Law enforcement officials there testified that they worried expanding the "castle doctrine" to the public sphere could result in street shootouts. The bill was later killed in committee.
Georgia law enforcement figures who testified in Senate hearings said they had no problem with the bill.
