Legislature considers deadly force measure

Daily News-Miner
Jan. 26, 2006

Two North Pole legislators want to give people more leeway to defend themselves or others from serious crimes such as robbery or rape.

A bill sponsored by the Republicans expands the circumstances during which a person can use deadly force in self-defense.

It's a carbon copy of a bill passed in the Florida Legislature last year. Passage of similar bills across the nation is being encouraged by the National Rifle Association.

Supporters say the legislation gives people more freedom to protect themselves and would act as a deterrent to crime.

Critics say it hands power that should remain with police and courts to the people, and that the measure fosters violence.

Alaska law already allows people to use deadly force in their own homes or when they can prove they could not have escaped their attacker. Senate Bill 200 permits deadly force even if a person could have fled their attacker and protects the person from civil liability.

The measure allows deadly force in self-defense from death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, rape, robbery, carjacking or to protect a child from crimes such as molestation.

Alaska is among 14 states considering the idea, according to a spokesman for The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a Washington, D.C., gun control group that opposes the legislation.

The Alaska bill gets its first public hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee today in Juneau.

"I am certainly open to debate and discussion," said Sen. Gene Therriault, who sponsored the measure, commonly called the "Castle Doctrine" by its supporters.

Rep. John Coghill sponsored a version in the House of representatives.

Therriault introduced the bill last May after watching the debate in Florida, where the idea drew bipartisan support. The Florida Senate passed the measure unanimously and the state's House passed it by a 94-20 vote.

"It just basically builds on the idea that you do have the right to protect yourself or use deadly force to prevent certain things from happening," Therriault said. "Sometimes we've seen instances where victims are the ones who are actually put on trial."

The senator said the law would act as a deterrent to criminals. Melissa Fouse, executive director of the Alaska Association of Trial Lawyers, disagreed.

"Nobody has ever proven that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime," Fouse said.

She describes the bill as a "boutique immunity bill" designed to deprive people of their right to sue over wrongdoing.

"We don't think that's right," Fouse said. "Besides, why would you shoot somebody over a car?"

Other states considering a similar bill are Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wyoming, said Zach Ragbourn, spokesman for The Brady Center.

After the Florida bill became law, the organization sent members to the Sunshine State to warn tourists not to provoke the state's residents.

"We still have people down in Miami and Orlando," Ragbourn said.

That won't happen here, if the Alaska bill passes, the spokesman said. The state's too big.

The Brady Center's problem with the idea is that it goes beyond self-defense, Ragbourn said.

"Shooting people in public because you think they might be a threat is not self-defense," Ragbourn said. "It's a dangerous solution to a nonexistent problem. There are not dozens or hundreds of men or women languishing in prison for the crime of defending their families."

Be that as it may, the NRA sees no reason people should have to retreat from serious threats.

"It's a straightforward law," NRA spokeswoman Autumn Fogg said. "You may meet force with force."