AN EIGHT YEAR OLD BOY IS DEAD, AND MICHIGAN LAWMAKERS SET PLANS TO MOVE DANGEROUS "SHOOT FIRST" BILL
For Immediate Release:
02-16-2006
Contact Communications:
(202) 898-0792
Detroit, MI - In a city growing ever more weary of gun violence that has repeatedly taken the lives of children, another child died yesterday. Tyshawn Stinson was an innocent bystander caught in the crossfire when someone chose to meet force with force and fire bullets into the child’s house. [Emphesis and Underlining added]
The morning after, in an amazingly vulgar display of bad timing, the House Judiciary Committee of the Michigan Legislature announced plans to hold hearings on a dreadful gun industry bill that would encourage people to use deadly force in public if they feel threatened.
“It makes me sick to my stomach that Michigan, a reasonable state full of reasonable people, would even hold a hearing on this horrible piece of legislation,” said Sarah Brady of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “And to take it up right after the death of a child is absolutely appalling.”
“We are urging the Legislature to reject this bill totally and forever,” said Shikha Hamilton, President of the Michigan Million Mom March Chapters of the Brady Campaign. “To even consider this bill is ridiculous. People - and children - are dying in Detroit. If this bill passes, we are all a little more likely to become innocent bystanders, like Tyshawn Stinson.”
The “Shoot First” bill, SB 1046, was introduced by Senator Alan Cropsey of DeWitt. It is scheduled to be considered by the Judiciary Committee Tuesday. It very closely tracks legislation passed in Florida last year by the National Rifle Association that police leaders and prosecutors around the nation have derided as dangerous and unnecessary.
The conservative Arizona Star newspaper called it “poorly thought out, unnecessary and potentially dangerous.” The Miami Herald said “people involved in violent clashes -- ranging from criminal activities to domestic disputes that escalate -- now have another justification for killing.” The Atlanta Journal Constitution wrote “under this broad law, a bar fight over a football game could legally end in gunfire and death if one of the combatants claimed to fear bodily harm. A gang member could legally shoot and kill a member of a rival gang, claiming he felt his life was threatened.”
Supporters of the legislation claim it is necessary to guarantee that people can defend themselves. But there are no individuals in jail anywhere in the U.S. for acting in legitimate self-defense. The only individuals this legislation can conceivably benefit, therefore, are individuals who would otherwise be convicted of a crime. “This will make our jobs 10 times harder,” said Randy Hillman of the Alabama District Attorney's Association. “It will confuse jurors in criminal trials and give criminals more of a defense.”
Police leaders have expressed concern that the law will send a message of empowerment to the most aggressive individuals in society - that rather than serve to defend people who use deadly force in a truly life-threatening situation, it will serve as an excuse to edgy individuals. The record so far bears this out: In its first Florida application, the law is being cited as a defense for a tow truck operator who killed the irate owner of a car he had just towed. “Everyone is apparently safer in Florida,” wrote the Atlanta Journal Constitution editorial board, “now that there's one fewer illegal parker roaming the streets.”
America’s police officers undergo months of intensive training to learn the judicious use of deadly force in a public setting. They learn, through that training, that the use of deadly force in public is excruciatingly dangerous, and that innocent bystanders can easily be injured or killed.
These bills immediately deputize anyone with a weapon to take on a criminal in potentially crowded public settings. It’s extraordinarily ill-advised and irresponsible.
