New laws...

[Kay/NC]

...often come into effect here in NC on December 1 st. Jim's thread about the NTSB proposing a ban on cells phone usage while driving brought a couple to mind. I think the texting ban in our state enacted last December...since it affected a behavior I don't engage in, I really didn't notice. This year, two really interesting ones were passed in the General Assembly...a pretty broad Castle doctrine law, and one that has been dubbed " Run and you're done". Philosophically, they are sort of counter- purposed, in terms of rights, I think. We now have no " duty to retreat" in our home, vehicle, and workplace, in deciding when it is allowable to apply lethal force. We have always had a mindset that your first imperative is to survive, and that gray areas can be dealt with later by the lawyers, so that one changed not so mch in our household. The second one is actually one I think may help to stop some of those truly deadly high- speed chases. Now in NC, if you run from the law, you had better be really fast. If they catch you, they will take your car. While I know this runs counter to " innocent until proven guilty", I do think it might provide some incentive for people to pull over, instead of hitting the gas. it is like confiscating a weapon from someone who's used one improperly, until their right to bear arms can be adjudicated in light of their poor judgment. We are seeing all sorts of abridgments of actions, places where we all get boxed in, due to that bad decision- making of a small percentage of the population. Most of us tend to operate in Golden Rule ways...and we suffer for the few who don't.

[Jim Meade / Iowa City]

I'm bothered by laws that provide for administrative sanctions like forfeitures without due process.  At first, this was quite popular, as it got a lot of press with drug busts.  Get caught with dope in your BMW and you lose it.  Urban legend has it that some police forces used that broadly.  I can't say I know of that on my own account.  Urban legend again says that even when you are proven innocent, it can be difficult, expensive and time consuming to get your property back.  I'm afraid I have to say I don't trust the bureaucrats, including the police, with my valuables anymore.

[Nebrfarmr]

I like the castle doctrine laws. I live a good half hour from law enforcement, maybe 20 minutes at lights and siren speeds. Why I should have to hide in a closet, and hope I don't get hurt by a criminal, or my wife or daughters don't get raped, or worse. I have a doorbell, anyone kicking the door in, or smashing a window is not coming over just to watch the game. I'm not advocating shooting any trespasser, but I don't want to worry about getting sued, on top of robbed, or worse. I figure if you really don't want to get shot at, just don't be breaking into my house. I always thought the 'duty to retreat' laws were to the criminals benefit. All they had to do was come barging into your house, tell you to get in another room, and walk off with your stuff. If you confronted them, they might shot you, and you'd be dead. If you shot them, then they or their next of kin might be living in a new house, paid for by you. Not much of a disincentive system if you ask me.......... ....... Cell phone use should be hands free, but I don't know if it has to be banned completely. Talking hands free shouldn't be any worse than talking to someone else in the car with you. ................... The run and you're done law sounds OK to me as well. If it is a serious criminal, they don't need to be driving again for a long time ( like a repeat drunk driver). I do hope there is some common sense disgression so that a kid late for curfew gets his car back after a while, but walking for a few weeks might teach them a lesson, as well. I really don't think that is against the innocent until proven guilty, as anymore police cars have cameras and guilt of flight to avoid arrest can be proven pretty much instantly. I am assuming there would be procedure before the car is seized.

[Kay/NC]

To be honest, have been so busy on helping our daughter with getting out new grandson off to a good start, and then tearing out and remodelling the kitchen here, I have not taken much time for the news for about six or seven weeks now.  Saw reports of thje first seizures fo vehicles locally in the local paper, and asked Mike about it, so I know it's the law now.

Haven't read or heard the fine points of due process. for these seizures  I think it is just like seizure of a vehicle for drug possession.  I am sure the runner is incarcerated.  As I understand it, the vehicle is impounded until his case is heard...it cannot be bailed out so to speak.  I think I skimmed a line of print about  it being sold to cover the costs of the pursuit, iif the driver is found guilty.   Seems fair to me. 

As for the Castle Doctrine, I have no doubt that a person employing this protection from harm could still be sued civilly by an intruder.  It is the relief of concern over being charged criminally, for protecting yourself in your own home, that these laws address.  No one should have to hire a lawyer for using a weapon to ward off crimes such as the ones you describe. 

[smokeyjay]

dittos, Jim.  Laws like this can open the door wide for all kinds of abuse.