Wednesday, January 31, 2007

If a criminal doesn't belong, then why should I have to leave.

Prosecutors Oppose 'Shoot The Burglar' Law
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) _ North Dakota prosecutors are opposing a law that would make it tougher for them to prosecute homeowners who shoot burglars.
The law says a North Dakotan who shoots an intruder is presumed to be defending himself. Prosecutors could try to charge the person with a crime anyway. But it would be harder to sustain a criminal charge -- or to get a conviction.
The North Dakota House Judiciary Committee is considering the bill.
Richard Jorgensen of Devils Lake says current law says that homeowners first have to try to avoid a confrontation with a burglar. And if they don't -- the burglar could take them to court if he's injured.
Burleigh County prosecutor Cynthia Feland (FEE'-land) says the proposal would tie the hands of prosecutors -- as they try to find out what happened in a shooting incident. Feland says prosecutors in a criminal case already have to prove that someone was acting in self-defense.

This so-called 'shoot the burglar first' law is really mislabelled by the media (I know a real shocker). It isn't any different from the stand your ground law in other states. And really when dealing with a criminal, why should a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN have to try to flee and surrender their property to the criminal, other wise known as a person that is more than willing to sacrifice your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I have heard interviews with criminals that were mad because they weren't able to take what they wanted because they believed they deserved what they wanted to confiscate from you.

As I have said, criminals need to be more afraid of us good guys than the other way around. Those of us who are LAW ABIDING CITIZENS should be given more than the benefit of the doubt. It would be different if the Supreme Court hadn't ruled from on high 20 different times that law enforcement doesn't have to respond.

This law is a way to protect the law abiding citizen from having to spend thousands of dollars from a prosecutor that pursues a case because of a political agenda or perhaps they failed to do their job to prosecute the criminal in the first place and is playing a game of 'cover their own democratic symbol.' It isn't something without precedents. There was a shooting down in Arizona. After the sheriff department declared it a clean shoot, the District Attorney decided to file charges. The DA went as far as to lie about why the choice of caliber the guy used, denying that it was a valid choice because it was more powerful than the police was using. Failing to point out that the 10 MM was developed for the FBI but there were agents to wimpy to handle the recoil from the weapon.

Something to ponder: Knowing that there are criminals that will kill you even if you give up your possessions, do you really want to trust someone that think they deserve your property that they aren't going to kill you? What if they want something worse? Isn't it better to protect the citizenry from an overzealous prosecutor, then send a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN that did nothing than protect themselves from a criminal that the legal system was either unable or unwilling to protect that citizen from anyway?

No comments: