# HB-1319 Self-Defense Change????/Hunters



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Ladd Erickson, McLean County States Attorney is asking for your help. For our benefit. Please read and contact your legistlator for a *NO* on HB-1319. Below is the voice of experiance. Dick

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was one of the state's attorneys who testified against this bill. Before I discuss the merits of this issue and suggest that you consider being concerned about this bill, let me say first that when I was a young army paratrooper I was placed in a position where I had to shoot at some people and was shot at myself. Luckily for me, the M-16 is much more accurate than the AK-47. Either way, the bullets are going, shootings are not filled with the glorified Dirty Harry persona that some seem to portray it in chat rooms. It is not unheard of for police officers who justifiably shoot someone to never be able to work on the streets again. My second preface is that I have my own rifle and pistol range on my farm and hunt, let hunters hunt my land, and have some strong opinions about gun ownership rights. This bill is not about that.

I believe this *(HB-1319)* is the worst bill in the legislature for the following reasons. We are currently years ahead of the NRA and other states in enacting the so called "castle doctrine" where a person has a right to use deadly force to protect life, limb, and property. Under current law, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person was not acting in self-defense and that conduct was not "excused" or "justified" under the circumstances. The shooter has no burden to prove anything, and can remain silent. In addition, deadly force is statutorily authorized under current law to protect your dwelling, work place, family, or yourself from arson, burglary, robbery, or felony crimes of violence.

The NRA is just getting to this issue and going around to the states trying to get them to enact what ND did decades ago. At the hearing on this bill, the NRA representative admitted that he had only read current ND law for the first time the night before the hearing. The debate that is happening on this site and others about whether this bill should be enacted to give homeowners some self-protection in the law is a false debate, and is based on media reports that don't explain that homeowners and have had the right to use deadly force all along. That is not the problem here.

*This bill goes well beyond that. It is an effort to expand the current "no duty to retreat from your home or business" doctrine to have that apply everywhere. Under current law, if you can avoid shooting someone in a bar, street, or other open field location, you should. * Where this applies is in cases like the tragedy a few years ago in Wisconsin where the shooter was on a tree stand of another during deer season and a confrontation ensued where the shooter killed a number of hunters who were approaching the tree stand. That shooter may or may not have been in a place he had a right to be, I don't know the posting law in that state, but he claimed self-defense. Under our current deadly force law that shooter would have had a duty to avoid shooting those hunters. Under this bill he would have "no duty to retreat" from a place he has a right to be.

A case I testified about at the hearing was a murder case in my county from October 17th, 2005. In that case, two men were in a camper getting a 15 year-old girl drunk when the wife of one of the men got upset with what was happening and tried enter the camper. After they were able to keep her out she went and got her brother. He forced his way into the camper and got into an argument with the two men about the girl. That escalated into a shoving match were one of the men fell back and hit the floor. The brother turned to grab the girl and take her out of the camper. The first bullet hit him in the arm (most likely). After hitting the ground the guy had turned and grabbed a Jennings .22 semi-auto from a cupboard and shot. The brother ran out of the camper and the shooter followed empting the clip at the brother who took one in the lungs that was fatal. The shooter claimed self-defense -like most all murderers do. However, the trail of cartilages leading away from the camper was part of the proof that there was no self-defense, that the shooter's duty under current law to either retreat or avoid using deadly force if you can was violated. * He chased this guy down and killed him because guy was interrupting his partying with this young girl. Under HB1319, the shooter was in a place he had a right to be and would have "no duty to retreat" or avoid deadly force. Be careful of what you are supporting in this bill.*

*Another troubling thought about HB1319 is the prohibition that the police cannot detain or arrest someone until they prove there was no self-defense. How are we supposed to determine that at the scene across the board. * In the case above the two men jumped in a car after he shot the brother and tried to head back to Arizona where they were from. Our deputies did a felony stop on them 15 miles from the crime scene. They had the gun with them. The shooter was tested for gun shot residue on his face and hands. The crime scene was being secured, the witnesses were being interviewed, some being detoxed before interviewing them, etc. *If one of your family members is a murder victim this bill prohibits the officers from detaining the shooter or doing any kind of normal investigation because we cannot prove all the facts regarding whether self-defense was proper until we get our case investigated - so we just have to let murderers walk away.* (read the immunity from criminal prosecution section of the bill)

This bill does not just affect gun cases. Another of many cases I see the bill effective is the bar fight stabbing that comes in. I recall one case when I worked in Morton County where a striper at the Silver Dollar grabbed a thong out of the purse of another stripper, shoved her to the floor and ran out the back. Anyway, the second stripper chased the first stripper down the alley, jumped on her and pusher her face down into the snow. After some punches and wrestling, the second stripper pulled out a knife and stabbed the first stripper 14 times in the back, once through a lung. She claimed self-defense and that deadly force was needed. I argued to the jury she had a duty to retreat and avoid the stabbing. The jury saw it my way. This is how the supreme court stated the facts:

Melissa Mathre and Tammy Hurkes were employed as dancers at a bar in Mandan, North Dakota. On January 22, 1998, Mathre and Hurkes began arguing at work about an item of clothing allegedly stolen by Hurkes. After closing, Mathre and Hurkes were involved in a physical altercation outside the bar. Mathre contends Hurkes attacked her, had her blocked in by a truck, and was pounding on her head when she reacted and stabbed Hurkes with a sharp object. Hurkes contends Mathre attacked and stabbed her after she attempted to walk away from the altercation.

*I think many of you can think of experiences with landowners and hunters in conflicts over hunting on some land issue. I get those cases in my office all the time. * Things can get heated out there and the duty to avoid shooting someone is an important principle for both sides. Under this bill, the surviving side of those disputes is going to claim the other side pointed a gun at them. We may not get the story from the other side because they (you) might be dead. There won't be the current concept in the law that the NRA wants deleted *("The use if deadly force is not justified if it can be avoided" HB1319, page 1, lines 14-15) * I hope the sportsman who are all for the Dirty Harry stuff in this bill are not the same ones who complain in the future when charges are not filed in some of these cases. There is a lot more to this bill than many of you might think. There is a reason why gun-totting state's attorney's like myself are concerned about it. Ladd Erickson, McLean County State's Attorney&#8230;


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Dick,

Do you know who is pushing this bill? Pimps & Meth chemists? Guides and outfitters? 

What Erickson writes sounds so reasonable, that I don't understand who is on the side pushing this, and what their motives might be.

M.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

From another thread I posted:

Just Another Dog

Thanks for that link. I am often disappointed with the NRA. When we implemented our concealed carry law in North Dakota the NRA bragged about it. The truth is up until that time we could carry any way we wanted to. They just cost us $50 for the license, and renewal costs every three years.

I read through this bill. The first part is worded different, but it doesn't change that much does it? I did see they added one thing I liked. Before you need not retreat in your home or place of work. They added vehicle, and I like that. It would be more useful in the cities where they have vehicle highjackings.

I don't know, I am a little undecided. I think Erickson is being a little pessimistic. The man who chased another out of a camper and shot him would still be a murderer. Maybe I am a little dense until I get some coffee into me. If I am wrong about this someone please point out my mistake. Seriously, I'm not trying to debate here, I am trying to sort out the truth.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

MRN, The National Rifle Asc. is the push behind it. I am a supporter of gun owner rights, but this thing is wacked. I think this bill is big time trouble for both hunters and society.

There are too many times during hunting season when conflicts arise over the smallest issue, trespass, claiming the same deer or even hunting spot, etc. And everyone is armed with a loaded weapon. That is not a good mix. Under current law the burden is on all parties to walk away.

The important thing is to contact you 3 legislators for NO on HB-1319.


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

> There are too many times during hunting season when conflicts arise over the smallest issue, trespass, claiming the same deer or even hunting spot, etc. And everyone is armed with a loaded weapon. That is not a good mix. Under current law the burden is on all parties to walk away.


It really is surprising that their hasn't been any shootouts regarding the comments above. I *used* to hunt with a guy that would always fire a few rounds in the air when someone would setup in the same field. Oh the good ol days of acting like a ******* 8)


----------



## Whelen35 (Mar 9, 2004)

As a life member of the NRA, a gun owner, and one of those people who carries a concealed gun. I really don't have a problem with it. The mentality of people who are looking for a way to justify killing someone, this law wont change. To me, it gives a person the ability to react and hopefully stop an altercation before it is too late. The back against the wall way of thinking is what most all sane people are going to use at the standard. I think that the presance of a gun can and does stop many people from pushing things to the edge where it may be too late. This is exactly why officers whear guns that people can see. If this law is passed, it would not change the way I would look at deadly force. Clearly, the man who chased donw the unarmed man and was shooting at him all the time he was attempting to get away would not set free. How again would an action like this be legal? Also, I think the $$$ ammount for a fenaly is $700.00 or more in stolden value of goods. If some one is breaking into my farm shop, I catch them in the act, (because I don't think they will wait for the police) I have my concealed gun on me, I would not have to wait around to add up the things in their arms to determeine if I can show my weapon. Usally bad guys know their rights, and if not the court appointed lawers do. If I shot them, I would be in a law suit because I have assets that the next of kin can go after. As I see it, if you have assets, and you were forced to use deadly force to protect yourself it would help protect you. Those who have nothing to go after have not and will likely continue to be passed over in these casses.


----------

