Premium ContentClick on Premium Content on the Featured navigation bar for information.
LINCOLN — It's been dubbed the “make my day” bill, after the oft-quoted line from a Clint Eastwood movie.
Others have called it a new version of Nebraska's 1969 “shoot your neighbor” law.
State Sen. Mark Christensen of Imperial prefers to talk about the “castle doctrine” and about Nebraskans being able to defend themselves without fear of prosecution or lawsuits.
If someone is breaking into your home, he argues, you shouldn't have to wonder whether the law thinks you are justified in shooting that person.
And, he said, you shouldn't be subject to civil liability if you kill or injure that person.
“If I break into your house, I'm a threat,” he said. “Why should I have any rights if I break into your house?”
Christensen plans to introduce a bill early in the 2010 legislative session to tip the scales toward people who shoot in self-defense.
His proposal faces skepticism from some senators, including Sen. Brad Ashford of Omaha, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Abbie Cornett of Bellevue, a former police officer.
Both said they would reserve final judgment until they read the bill.
But Ashford said the bill's direction could lead to unintended and tragic consequences. Cornett said current self-defense laws are adequate.
“I think Nebraska is fairly prudent with its existing laws,” she said. “You're allowed to defend yourself.”
Existing state law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves or others when threatened with death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping or forced sexual intercourse.
It also allows, in some cases, for the use of deadly force to protect property from would-be arsonists, burglars and robbers.
Christensen said he isn't bringing his bill because of any situation in which the current law did not work properly. He said he doesn't know of any such cases.
Rather, he said, he got the idea from talking with constituents.
“I brought this on my own,” he said. “The NRA (National Rifle Association) didn't ask me to. Nobody asked me to.”
His proposal would make four main changes:
Ÿ It would make it easier to claim self-defense and harder for prosecutors to prove otherwise if a person used deadly force against someone breaking into a home, car or workplace. In such cases, the person using force would be presumed to have a reasonable belief that force was needed.
Ÿ It would repeal a requirement that a person avoid using deadly force by retreating. Current law says people who know they can retreat safely must do so, although they don't have to retreat from their home or workplace.
Ÿ It would protect a person acting in self-defense from being held liable for their actions. Existing law allows those who act in self-defense to be sued, whether the suit is filed by a criminal, the criminal's family or an innocent third party.
Ÿ It would remove or alter the current law's “choice of evils” provision. The provision requires a person using deadly force to be acting to avoid a greater evil.
Lancaster County Attorney Gary Lacey, a prosecutor for 34 years, said state law already provides enough protection for people who shoot in self-defense.
If people claim self-defense, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were not justified in their actions. In addition, juries are told to look at situations from the perspective of those claiming self-defense, he said.
Changing the law so people shoot without hesitation could lead to people killing a family member coming home late or a person pounding on the door in the middle of the night seeking help, Lacey said.
In Colorado this year, a drunken man was shot and killed outside a home he tried to enter, apparently believing it was his own. His home was a block away.
“Any time you skew the law in favor of someone so that you don't have to think about what you are doing, it's going to lead to an unjust result,” Lacey said.
Such concerns led to a 1969 law being labeled the “shoot your neighbor” law.
Until it was ruled unconstitutional in 1971, the law provided that Nebraskans could use “any means necessary” to protect themselves, their families and their property and when coming to the aid of others threatened with a heinous crime.
The Nebraska Supreme Court threw out the law, saying it improperly allowed private citizens to determine the punishment for crimes.
Contact the writer: 402-473-9583, martha.stoddard@owh.com
Copyright ©2012 Omaha World-Herald®. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, displayed or redistributed for any purpose without permission from the Omaha World-Herald.
