Catholic Conference and stand your ground laws
This is an editorial that crossed my path while researching pacifism and self-defense. My words are in red.
https://ndcatholic.org/yourresources/editorials/column0319/
Deadly Force Can Rarely be Justified
by Christopher Dodson
Executive Director
North Dakota Catholic Conference
March 2019
For the second consecutive legislative session, the North Dakota Legislative Assembly has considered legislation to expand when a person can use deadly force against another. Proponents call these proposals “stand your ground” laws. Some law enforcement officials call them “shoot to kill” bills. (Sure, maybe some liberal police chief somewhere stated this but doubtful this is true representation of most law enforcement.) As in 2017, the latest bill was defeated, but the margin was narrow. Both bills would have allowed the use of deadly force to protect theft of property, even if no life was threatened. (Not a fan of using deadly force to protect property. It is very grey area. What kind of property? A car, sure. A shovel from your shed? )
Support for these type of bills often reflect misunderstandings of both the moral law and North Dakota law.(Ah, so if you support the stand your ground laws, you just don't understand things...)
When and how much force an individual can use against another is ultimately a moral issue.( Not really moral but a philosophical issue. What do we as a society say about this or that? ) The Bible presents the precept "You shall not kill" as a divine commandment. (Nope, it's " Not murder". Get your terminology straight.) Those of different faiths or no faith accept the same injunction because the value of all human life. (Not true. Some faiths teach that human life has whatever value an oppressor wants to attach to it. ) From this precept comes a fundamental principle: No one can claim the right to deliberately kill another human being. The injunction is rooted in the recognition that all human life is sacred and that all human life has inherent value.( Some belief systems hold to this but most have a sliding scale on value. That priests and holy men are most valuable and women at least.)
Yet as far back as the Book of Exodus, faced with often tragic cases that can occur, we sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what the commandment prohibits and prescribes, particularly in cases of self-defense. Saint Thomas Aquinas later provided the most accepted and definitive treatment of the subject. What he taught, though not entirely new even then, became the basis of Western Law.
Aquinas restated the fundamental principle that it is never permissible for a private individual to intentionally kill a person. (Permissable by who? This is where things get murky. There is a difference between a religious view, command and injunction and a code of conduct implemented by the state. In the first, God or gods will cause the punishment whereas in the second the state sets up the rule, judge and punishment. Just because God says..."Don't commit adultery" the state is not obligated to follow this. We, as a society, can come together and say " Yeah, God doesn't want us to do this but we aren't going to implement that in our society". ) This injunction applies even in cases of self-defense. A person can, however, use moderate force (What is moderate force? Define that ) to repel an aggressor when it is necessary to protect oneself or someone for whom the person is responsible. If the use of force meets these conditions, and the aggressor unintentionally dies as a result, the person is not guilty of murder. If however, these conditions are not met and the aggressor dies, the person has committed murder.
Three fundamental principles underlie this teaching. First, intentional killing of an innocent person is always wrong. (Agreed) Second, intentional killing of a wrongdoer is also always wrong,(I really don't like the vague and weak use of the term ' wrongdoer'. Let's use more specific language - mass murderer, serial rapist, child molester, spree killer, psychopathic torturer ) though the use of force that unintentionally results in the death of a wrongdoer can be justified. Third, the mere fact that an individual is not where he or she should be or may be intending harm does not create an exception to the rule. Even in that case, a person cannot intend to kill the individual.
Through the centuries, courts and lawmakers incorporated these principles into law. The “duty to retreat” in English common law finds its basis in the necessity requirement, since the use of deadly force could not be viewed as necessary if the person could escape. Eventually, some jurisdictions, including North Dakota, adopted the “Castle Doctrine,” which removed the duty to retreat in a person’s dwelling or work place.
The Castle Doctrine does not necessarily contradict the fundamental principles since it is based on several presumptions about the ability to retreat. Indeed, something like the Castle Doctrine appears in Exodus 22:1. It states: “If a thief is caught in the act of housebreaking and beaten to death, there is no bloodguilt involved.” The next verse, however, states: “But if after sunrise he is thus beaten, there is bloodguilt.” In other words, killing an intruder at night was permissible, but killing in an intruder during the day was not because escaping was possible in daylight.
North Dakota law clearly respects an individual’s “right” use deadly force when necessary to prevent “death, serious bodily injury, or the commission of a felony involving violence” to the individual or others. The law contains a “duty to retreat,” but only outside of a person’s dwelling. Removing the requirement would, practically by definition, allow intentional killing when it is not necessary. (This is an example of competing philosophies. Why does my right and standing bow down to the criminal who is violating societal law and custom? The follow up is, " It's not your job to implement societal punishment for the breaking of the rules of society. You should retreat and let the mechanism of the state take over. ) This violates the fundamental moral rule that a person cannot use deadly force except when it is necessary for self-defense.
Because the use of deadly force is justified only when it is intended and necessary for the protection of human life, it follows that deadly force can never be used in defense of property. The principle always recognized in Western Law and morality has been that only moderate force — and even then, only the amount necessary — is justified to protect property. (Written or spoken like someone who has little understanding of the use of force. " Only the amount necessary" is a vague and impossible standard at the time of a violent encounter. )
Proponents of these types of law often claim that responsible citizens would never intentionally kill if doing so was not necessary. The law, however, is not meant only for responsible citizens. With that approach we would not need laws against abortion, rape, or sex abuse because no “responsible” person in their “right mind” would do it. (Am I understanding the reading on this correctly? Did they just state that a person using deadly force in defense of property or standing their ground is on the same moral standing as a rapist? )
Indeed, there is not just a tangential connection between the deadly force laws and issues like abortion. The fundamental moral laws are universal. They apply now, just as they did in the time of Thomas Aquinas and the time of the Exodus. They apply in the womb, in our streets, and in our homes. They are universal because God is the Author of Life and Truth now and forever. Our laws should respect and reflect that truth.
(And this is why our founding fathers rejected the idea of a government influenced or run by a church or religious belief. Although religious belief and and the corresponding encoded law(s) are often good because of human evil, they can easily be warped against certain people. It is much better to have an atheistic, civil interaction guideline like we have now where individual rights and freedoms are recognized. We can say that life is precious and needs defended and shouldn't be destroyed over a shovel and that's a noble principle but don't tell me killing a violent, predatory stalker who is going after my daughter in a parking lot is somehow morally wrong.
What We Do
The North Dakota Catholic Conference acts on behalf of the Roman Catholic bishops of North Dakota to respond to public policy issues of concern to the Catholic Church and to educate Catholics and the general public about Catholic social doctrine.
Contact Us
North Dakota Catholic Conference
103 South Third Street, Suite 10
Bismarck, North Dakota
58501
1-888-419-1237
701-223-2519
Contact Us
Comments
Post a Comment