KIBRET MARKOS
November 30, 2006
Bergen Record
Fifteen states have enacted self-defense laws during the last two years, expanding the right to use deadly force.
In New Jersey, where a similar bill is awaiting debate in the Assembly, supporters argue that "stand-your-ground" laws protect crime victims from possible prosecution for defending themselves. Critics, meanwhile, say that "shoot-first" measures constitute excessive force and are wreaking public-safety havoc.
For a deadly force law:
"When there is an intruder in your home, the last thing you should worry about is whether you are using excessive force," said Assemblyman Richard Merkt, R-Morris, who introduced the New Jersey Self Defense Bill in January.
The self-defense law should be concerned more with protecting the rights of victims than protecting the rights of criminals, he said.
"If a burglar invades your house and gets hurt in the bargain, I don't think the law should recognize his claim," he said.
Merkt said that the Democratic-controlled state Legislature has been reluctant to post his bill for a hearing, and that New Jersey may be a long way from enacting such law.
"But this is an idea that I believe will eventually be enacted in New Jersey, because it makes sense," he said.
Scott Bach, president of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs and NRA board member, stressed that the self-defense law is not a "shoot-first" law.
"Anyone who shoots first must and will be prosecuted, and these laws don't change that," he said. "What these laws attempt to say is that you can stand your ground. They make it harder to turn a victim into a criminal by second-guessing a decision they made in a split second under a lot of pressure."
Bach also insisted that the self-defense issue is not a gun-control issue.
"A baseball bat could be a lethal force," he said. "This is a self-defense issue. If life is worth living, then it's worth defending."
David Kopel, research director at the Independence Institute, a national public-policy think tank, agrees with Bach that this is not a pro-gun versus anti-gun debate.
Kopel said that when a victim acts in self-defense, it is up to prosecutors to determine whether the victim acted legitimately or used excessive force.
"Prosecutors with good judgment will not try to push the case," Kopel said.
"But the experience has been that there are sometimes abusive prosecutors -- and, therefore, it's important to have very clear rules about self defense that can't be abused."
The self-defense issue, in that sense, is a matter of placing a reasonable limit on the power of prosecutors, he said.
"In New Jersey, the case for such laws is actually much stronger," he said.
"[Almost] everywhere, district attorneys and prosecutors are elected by the people. New Jersey has more of a monarchial system of government, with the governor appointing every prosecutor. This law would serve as a check and balance."
* * *
Against a law:
Opponents maintain that the self-defense laws are nothing but a pro-gun political agenda camouflaged as a public-safety issue.
"The goal of this law is to frighten people so they can arm themselves," said Bryan Miller, executive director of Ceasefire NJ, a gun-violence prevention group. "This is about selling guns. The NRA has made the shoot-first bills their top priority nationwide. It is to protect the gun industry so they could sell more guns."
Other opponents point out that self-defense laws nationwide already favor victims, and that the over-prosecution of crime victims has never been a problem.
"We have been asking: 'Why is this bill needed?' " said Zach Ragbourn, spokesman for the national Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Who is sitting in prison for defending their families? Nobody can answer that question."
Ragbourn said that self-defense laws were successfully enacted in 15 states not because there was a shift in public opinion, but because the NRA spent millions in lobbying efforts.
With the belief that they were protecting crime victims, lawmakers in those states enacted laws that had nothing to do with self-defense, he said. The results so far are making many think twice, he said.
"There were obviously very quick victories in some states, because lawmakers didn't have a reason to question those bills back then," he said. "I think they have a lot of reasons to question it now: Who does this help?"
State Sen. Paul Sarlo, D-Wood-Ridge, agreed that he doesn't recall a time when someone defending himself or herself at home was prosecuted.
"If someone breaks into your home and you defend yourself, I can't imagine a prosecutor going after you," said Sarlo, the Senate's assistant majority leader. "Prosecutors stand for the victims who defend themselves. My opinion is that the laws on the book are sufficient to protect our people."
Many prosecutors oppose the self-defense bill, saying that it only attempts to expand the right to use force.
Theodore Romankow, president of the County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey, said the association had reviewed Merkt's bill and did not endorse it for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that it permitted the use of deadly force against someone breaking into a car.
"That type of force would and should be considered excessive," Romankow said. "The law, as it currently exists, provides self-defense to homeowners and to persons who are being attacked with deadly force."
E-mail: markos@northjersey.com
Copyright © 2006 North Jersey Media Group Inc.
