Self-defense bill sent to Missouri state Senate

By Jacob Barker

Published Feb. 23, 2007

A bill sailed through the house Monday that would make it much easier for citizens to legally use deadly force.

The House voted 143-4 Monday to pass the "Castle Doctrine" bill, which clarifies when a person can use deadly force in self-defense and protects the person from legal action when using deadly force.

According to a House news release, the "Castle Doctrine" is an English common law doctrine about self-defense.

"The main reason for this bill is to reduce civil liability when you take it into your own hands to defend yourself," bill sponsor State Rep. Kenneth Jones, R-California, said.

The bill, if passed in the Senate and signed by Gov. Matt Blunt, would allow people to use deadly force in self-defense if they feel an imminent threat to themselves or others and are not engaged in any illegal activity.

As the law stands now, citizens who feel threatened can only use deadly force as a last resort and have a duty to retreat. The language of Jones' act states that people who are anywhere they can legally be have, "no duty to retreat and the right to stand (their) ground and meet force with force."

The bill states that a person who justifiably uses force in self-defense "is immune from civil actions for the use of such force." The bill also allows for compensation for legal fees if a person is found to have used violent force in justifiable self-defense.

"Sometimes people are sued for taking it into their own hands to protect themselves," Jones said. "You can't hire enough police to protect every citizen all the time."

National Rifle Association spokeswoman Ashley Varner said in the past two years, 15 states have passed similar bills.

"It's really been a movement because many of the states had a statute saying innocent victims had the duty to retreat, and we believe that's wrong," she said. "We want to put the law on the side of the victim. If you're attacked and have to make a split-second decision, you don't always have the time or the opportunity to run away."

Zach Ragbourn, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said Jones' bill is a poorly written piece of legislation.

"There are plenty of self-defense laws that are fine," he said. "But there's a huge disconnect between the rhetoric of this bill and what it actually does."

Ragbourn cited section three of the bill, which states that a person can use defensive force if, "he or she reasonably believes it necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

He said this means people can claim self defense just by saying they thought something bad was going to happen, which he said is no longer self defense.

"The fact is that for the bill to do what legislators claim it does, no legislative action needs to be taken," Ragbourn said. "When you write a law badly, people can use the loopholes."

House Minority Leader Jeff Harris, D-Columbia, said each case would be investigated to determine if violent self-defense was legitimately necessary.

Harris said he expects the bill to have strong support in the Senate.