LA Times on Castle Doctrine, No-Retreat Laws
Texas is considering the different self-defense supplements, and the L.A. Times describes them...
"In a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach to personal safety, state lawmakers are weighing a bill that would give Texans the right to use deadly force as a first resort when they feel their safety is threatened."
"The bill allows a person to claim self-defense if he or she feels threatened at home, in a car or place of business."
"Florida legislators, who in 2005 were the first in the nation to enact a "stand your ground" statute, are already rethinking the law."
"In a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach to personal safety . . . ." There's a great illustration of "balanced" reporting.
The shooting of the child Sherdavia Jenkins seems to me to have about as much relevance to the castle doctrine as "buffalo" to "balloon." According to the CBS story linked below, You got two gangstas in the street trying to blow each other away, which is already an illegal act, and, I would think, reckless endangerment.
"Both suspects were charged with 2nd Degree Murder With a Deadly Weapon, Attempted 2nd Degree Murder With a Deadly Weapon and Possession of a Weapon/Firearm by a Convicted Felon."
The article states Florida's considered revisions include provisions for the death of bystanders and the requirement of an overt act. Am I losing it? Isn't an overt act implicit to the notion of self-defense? I can't believe that as the law stands it protects violence precipitated by any irrational or whimsical fear.
Posted by: W. Bailey at February 18, 2007 11:15 AM