Drizzt
Member
Anchorage Daily News (Alaska)
April 26, 2003 Saturday, FINAL EDITION
SECTION: ALASKA; Pg. B6
LENGTH: 697 words
HEADLINE: Bills assault right to self-defense
BYLINE: By BRANT McGEE and BARBARA BRINK
BODY:
Your right to defend yourself and your family is under attack.
A radical change in the law has been proposed (Senate Bill 170; House Bill 244) to make it easier to convict Alaskans who exercise their right of self-defense. Under current law, if you are attacked and forced to defend yourself and later prosecuted, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your use of force was unjustified. The new statute will shift the burden of proof from the government to you and make you prove your innocence. In some situations you will have no right to defend yourself at all. Self-defense, the right embodied in every major legal system since Old Testament times, always takes place in moments of crisis. While an Alaskan must act reasonably in using force in self-defense, "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife." These words by Justice Holmes describe the difficulty of knowing exactly what force is necessary at a particular moment in a confrontation. Determination of the facts by a jury is often difficult and now the government wants to stack the deck. This change in the law will treat you, the victim of an assault, like a criminal.
While it is claimed the new statute is for convicting gang members, it would dramatically diminish the rights of all of us to self-defense. But the most outrageous impact is on previously assaulted victims. The exact new words are that "a person may not use deadly force ... if the person brought a deadly weapon to an encounter with reckless disregard that the encounter would result in combat." In other words, a woman who arms herself because she is afraid her abusive ex-boyfriend might seriously hurt or kill her in an encounter has absolutely no right to self-defense. This proposal denies any right of self-defense to the very people who are most likely to have to exercise it -- those in fear of someone who has threatened them. By exercising her Second Amendment rights, she has canceled her right to self-defense.
Defending a loved one from an unexpected deadly assault will require you to prove your innocence. For example, an elderly grandfather has chosen to obtain a concealed weapon permit. Each day he walks his 10-year-old grandson to and from the bus stop. One afternoon, as he approaches the bus stop, he sees a group of older boys surround his grandson and the biggest one begins to pistol whip the boy. As his grandson drops unconscious to the ground, the assailant continues to strike him in the head with the pistol. The grandfather shouts two warnings before he opens fire and kills the assailant. The grandfather is arrested and charged with murder because the assailant's pistol was not employed as a firearm. This man must come to court and prove his innocence.
Why can't we trust juries to acquit in these cases even though the government has turned the presumption of innocence into a presumption of guilt and transferred the burden of proof to the citizen? The answer is that the law should protect the innocent from arrest and prosecution as well. People charged with homicide almost never make bail -- most lose their jobs and often their marriages and relationships. The children of jailed defendants are often taken into state custody. The cost of defending such cases will fall upon public agencies who use public dollars to pay lawyers, investigators, experts and scientific analysts. A homicide charge is a life-changing trauma that is never erased by an acquittal.
This change in the law is poorly conceived and runs counter to Alaskans' conception of their right to self-defense. What of the innocent person who, because of the change proposed in this bill, hesitates to act in a moment of crisis and is killed by an attacker?
This proposed change in the law demands public condemnation. Every person who has loved ones to protect has a stake in this issue. Do not let the government kill your right to defend yourself and your family.
Public Defender Barbara Brink and Public Advocate Brant McGee manage agencies that provide legal representation to indigent defendants, abused and neglected children, parents and other Alaskans.
April 26, 2003 Saturday, FINAL EDITION
SECTION: ALASKA; Pg. B6
LENGTH: 697 words
HEADLINE: Bills assault right to self-defense
BYLINE: By BRANT McGEE and BARBARA BRINK
BODY:
Your right to defend yourself and your family is under attack.
A radical change in the law has been proposed (Senate Bill 170; House Bill 244) to make it easier to convict Alaskans who exercise their right of self-defense. Under current law, if you are attacked and forced to defend yourself and later prosecuted, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your use of force was unjustified. The new statute will shift the burden of proof from the government to you and make you prove your innocence. In some situations you will have no right to defend yourself at all. Self-defense, the right embodied in every major legal system since Old Testament times, always takes place in moments of crisis. While an Alaskan must act reasonably in using force in self-defense, "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife." These words by Justice Holmes describe the difficulty of knowing exactly what force is necessary at a particular moment in a confrontation. Determination of the facts by a jury is often difficult and now the government wants to stack the deck. This change in the law will treat you, the victim of an assault, like a criminal.
While it is claimed the new statute is for convicting gang members, it would dramatically diminish the rights of all of us to self-defense. But the most outrageous impact is on previously assaulted victims. The exact new words are that "a person may not use deadly force ... if the person brought a deadly weapon to an encounter with reckless disregard that the encounter would result in combat." In other words, a woman who arms herself because she is afraid her abusive ex-boyfriend might seriously hurt or kill her in an encounter has absolutely no right to self-defense. This proposal denies any right of self-defense to the very people who are most likely to have to exercise it -- those in fear of someone who has threatened them. By exercising her Second Amendment rights, she has canceled her right to self-defense.
Defending a loved one from an unexpected deadly assault will require you to prove your innocence. For example, an elderly grandfather has chosen to obtain a concealed weapon permit. Each day he walks his 10-year-old grandson to and from the bus stop. One afternoon, as he approaches the bus stop, he sees a group of older boys surround his grandson and the biggest one begins to pistol whip the boy. As his grandson drops unconscious to the ground, the assailant continues to strike him in the head with the pistol. The grandfather shouts two warnings before he opens fire and kills the assailant. The grandfather is arrested and charged with murder because the assailant's pistol was not employed as a firearm. This man must come to court and prove his innocence.
Why can't we trust juries to acquit in these cases even though the government has turned the presumption of innocence into a presumption of guilt and transferred the burden of proof to the citizen? The answer is that the law should protect the innocent from arrest and prosecution as well. People charged with homicide almost never make bail -- most lose their jobs and often their marriages and relationships. The children of jailed defendants are often taken into state custody. The cost of defending such cases will fall upon public agencies who use public dollars to pay lawyers, investigators, experts and scientific analysts. A homicide charge is a life-changing trauma that is never erased by an acquittal.
This change in the law is poorly conceived and runs counter to Alaskans' conception of their right to self-defense. What of the innocent person who, because of the change proposed in this bill, hesitates to act in a moment of crisis and is killed by an attacker?
This proposed change in the law demands public condemnation. Every person who has loved ones to protect has a stake in this issue. Do not let the government kill your right to defend yourself and your family.
Public Defender Barbara Brink and Public Advocate Brant McGee manage agencies that provide legal representation to indigent defendants, abused and neglected children, parents and other Alaskans.
