States Allow Deadly Self-Defense

From USAToday:

Five months after Florida became the first state to allow citizens to use deadly force against muggers, carjackers and other attackers, the idea is spreading. South Dakota has enacted a similar law, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels plans to sign such a measure today, and 15 other states are considering such proposals.

Dubbed “Stand Your Ground” bills by supporters such as the National Rifle Association, the measures generally grant immunity from prosecution and lawsuits to those who use deadly force to combat an unlawful entry or attack. Several states allow people to use deadly force in their homes against intruders; the new measures represent an expansion of self-defense rights to crimes committed in public.

The NRA and other supporters say the bills are needed in many states that require people under attack in public places to withdraw from the situation, rather than retaliate, unless they can show their lives are in danger. “For someone attacked by criminals to be victimized a second time by a second-guessing legal system is wrong,” the NRA's Wayne LaPierre says.

Critics, including the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence, say the bills encourage vigilantism and would make it more likely that confrontations would turn deadly. Zach Ragbourn of the Brady group says the proposals “are more accurately called ‘Shoot First' laws. They allow a person who just feels something bad is going to happen to open fire in public.”

The idea that people should use deadly force only to defend their lives is rooted in English common law, author Richard Maxwell Brown says in No Duty To Retreat: Violence and Values in American History and Society. Another common-law principle, the “duty to retreat,” requires people to avoid potentially deadly confrontations. The principles apply in many U.S. states. The duty to retreat generally doesn't apply in a person's home.

[More]

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
"... rather than retaliate ..."? Is USAToday actually paying people to write this crap? Who said anything about "retaliating"? I can guaran-damn-tee you that these bills do not allow victims to "retaliate" against their attackers. That would be 2nd-degree murder or perhaps voluntary manslaughter.

These bills are about allowing a victim the right to defend himself without first having to retreat from an attacker. They're not about giving victims carte blanche to "retaliate".