Statistics
Jan
30
Colorado business protection bill dies. Arizona shopkeeper shoots robbers.
January 30, 2009 | Tagged Castle Doctrine, Colorado business self-defense law, Colorado Make My Day Law, Police have no "general duty" to protect individual | Leave a Comment
The recent security camera footage out of Arizona punctuates the death of Colorado Senate Bill 09-008, which would have provided “Castle Doctrine” or “Make my day” protection to Colorado businesses. SB 08 would have protected business owners or employees from criminal or civil liability in the event that they used force to defend themselves from persons illegally on the premises of their places of business. The bill died on Wednesday in the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee on a party line vote following public testimony. Majority Democrats voted to kill the bill.
Everyone, including the sponsors, knew that the bill was going to die. Pro-Second Amendment bills almost always wither when the Democrats control the Legislature.
Some of the testimony against the bill was interesting. One young lady from the University of Colorado (Think People’s Republic of Boulder) was against the bill, because we as a society need to look at the “bigger picture” and promote peace in the World. She also opined that citizens shouldn’t take away the job of the police.
The young woman obviously didn’t know that the best police response time is about four minutes, which is a long time to endure stabbing, blunt object trauma, or even a vigorous open hand spanking. (Don’t try this at home.) The liberal ingenue (Don’t you just love French words. President Obama thinks they are so cool. I get all tingly.) also didn’t know that the police have no responsibility to protect an individual person from a particular criminal act. (Jessica Ruth Gonzales v. the United States of America) (How many crimes against “common citizens” are committed in the presence of honest police personnel?) (See also Warren v. District of Columbia-1981, Bowers v. Devito-1982.)
Bowers v. Devito is particularly instructive. “There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”
Rhonda Holland, a woman whose throat was cut by a killer in Littleton, Colorado in 2004, was working alone in her family’s gift shop when she was murdered. Littleton Police Chief Gary Maas said “There isn’t (sic) enough of us to provide the amount of police protection people want and quite frankly deserve.” (Gonzales, Manny, “Killer, mom’s grief still out there, The Denver Post, Denver Newspaper Authority, Denver, CO 01-18-05, page 5B.)
Other bizarre testimony came from the executive director of of a program to prevent violence against women. She was concerned that (male) business owners and employees might be abusers and use the protection of SB 08 to kill their wives. When questioned by an incredulous state senator, who reasonably asked why her group would have an interest in the bill, the executive director replied that her victim’s advocates were worried that business owners and employees who were the subjects of restraining orders might somehow lure their abused wives or girlfriends to a business location under a false pretext and shoot them.
Of course, the executive director didn’t know or ignored the fact that anyone subject to a restraining order is legally barred from possessing a firearm. There is another issue that jumps out of this hypothetical scenario like a rabid kangaroo. How many women are stupid or manipulative enough to take out protective orders and then deliberately put themselves at risk and their “abusive” spouses or boyfriends in violation of the orders by meeting with them?
Of course logic and scientific research are not often significant parts of these hearings. In my experience, very seldom, if ever, do legislators change their minds as a result of public testimony, even when the facts are presented by experts in the field involved in the hearing. Party discipline and preconceived attitudes make most public testimony a formality.
(Note to non-voters and third party voters: if you want legislation to pass that supports your fundamental natural right to self-defense from crime, tyranny, and genocide, vote for electable pro-gun rights candidates from a major party.)
In the hearing for SB 08, the Colorado Police Chief’s Association came out against the bill. The Colorado County Sheriffs came out for the bill, and the Colorado District Attorneys took no position. A district attorney for Weld County, a generally rural area, came in to testify for the bill. Outside of heavily populated areas, good law enforcement response time can be up to half an hour. Imagine being assaulted for thirty minutes without hope of police rescue!
In case you missed the video from Arizona, two robbers entered a jewelry shop and chemically maced the man behind the counter. The felon with the can of mace then smashed the top of a jewelry case with what looked like a large metal pry bar. At that point, the robbery went horribly wrong for the criminals, when the victim pulled a gun and electronically locked the door to the store.
Faced with a hail of lead, both robbers ran, bounced off the locked door to the shop and cowered in the front corners of the store. The merchant detained both wounded bandits at gunpoint pending the arrival of the police.
The question now arises, did the shopkeeper use excessive force in defending himself and the business? You can bet your last diamond earring that some wily lawyer, and possibly the ACLU, will file a civil suit against the victim of the attack, unless Arizona has a Castle Doctrine law that protects businesses. Even then, the excessive force issue may come into play.
I’m not an attorney, but I would like to be on that jury. The storekeeper was clearly in great physical danger during the robbery and assault. Someone once said that, “If someone is robbing you, he is very close to killing you.” One assailant was armed with a chemical spray and a metal bar. The chemical, itself, could have been fatal in my non-medical opinion, if the victim had asthma, emphysema, or some other breathing problem. The metal bar is a weapon very capable of inflicting a deadly blow in the hands of a determined assailant.
On the other hand, did the threat cease, when the robbers saw the victim’s gun and decided that they had urgent business outside the store? Did pushing the alarm button automatically lock the door to the shop, trapping the victim inside with the felons? Was the merchant justified in shooting the robbers in order to restrain them for his own safety? The lesson here may be: if you have a gun and are willing to defend yourself, turn off the video camera, before you shoot the criminal. At this point, I would vote to acquit and relieve the owner from any civil liability. Colorado business owners remain at risk for civil suits from surviving felons and their kin.
Def Mech