HB 24-SELF DEFENSE  2:08:59 PM CHAIR COGHILL announced the consideration of HB 24. [CSHB 24(JUD) was before the committee.] 2:09:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, joint prime sponsor of HB 24, said HB 24 is "An Act relating to self-defense in any place where a person has a right to be." He explained that the bill would extend the rights of the castle doctrine to any place in Alaska where a person has a legal right to be. However, the bill does not change the justification clauses. He noted that the House Judiciary Committee made a slight change and placed the word "other" between the words "any" and "place" [on page 2, line 3 to clarify that the proposed new AS 11.81.335(b)(5) addresses locations other than those already outlined in existing AS 11.81.335(b)(1) and (3).] He summarized that the bill allows Alaskans to protect themselves and their families when they are in any place they have a right to be. 2:12:08 PM SENATOR DYSON offered his understanding that to use deadly force a person has to be in fear of death or serious bodily harm. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN confirmed that the justification clause in AS 11.81.335(a) says that a person may use deadly force in self- defense "to the extent that a person reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary against death; serious physical injury; kidnapping, except what is described as custodial interference in the first degree; sexual assault in the first and second degrees; sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree; or robbery in any degree." SENATOR DYSON said he wanted it on the record that the legislation does not exclude the fact that for a person to be justified in using deadly force the person must be in fear of their life or serious physical injury. This does not give blanket permission for people to shoot somebody. 2:13:22 PM SENATOR MCGUIRE highlighted that AS 11.81.335(b) goes on to say "A person may not use deadly force under this section if the person knows that, with complete personal safety and with complete safety as to others being defended, the person can avoid the necessity of using deadly force by leaving the area of the encounter, except there is no duty to leave the area if the person is" on premises the person owns or leases, resides or is a guest. The bill does not change that except as outlined under subsection (a). She asked for the reasoning underlying the House Judiciary amendment to insert "other" between the words "any" and "place" [on page 2, line 3]. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said that body wanted to clarify that paragraph (5) identifies a place other than a person's home or business. CHAIR COGHILL asked for an explanation of the debate that took place on the House floor and where the sponsor stood on the proposed amendment relating to robbery. 2:15:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN explained that current statue says a person has the right to use deadly force in the defense of self in robbery in any degree. The proposed amendment would have eliminated the possibility to use deadly force for robbery in the second degree. He did not support the amendment because circumstances can be nuanced and change in a split second. AS 11.41.500, robbery in the first degree, involves a threat of physical injury. AS 11.41.510, robbery in the second degree, does not involve a threat or physical injury. He relayed that he respected the fact that previous legislators included all robbery. CHAIR COGHILL offered his understanding that robbery involves taking from somebody as opposed to thievery. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN reiterated that he did not support the floor amendment proposed in the other body. 2:19:05 PM REX SHATTUCK, Staff to Representative Mark Neuman, sponsor of HB 24, added that robbery is typically against a person. It doesn't matter what is being taken; if there is a weapon or indication of serious threat, it is against a person. He emphasized that the deliberations are about protecting the rights of an individual. CHAIR COGHILL said the law should be very clear because people won't be thinking about the fine points of law when confronted by a violent act. 2:20:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said he spent considerable time discussing the point with legislative legal and decided that it was appropriate to keep the current statute. 2:21:02 PM BRIAN JUDY, Alaska State Liaison, National Rifle Association, said the NRA supports HB 24. He said this important self-defense legislation provides that a law-abiding person who is justified in using deadly force in self-defense has no duty to retreat from an attack if the person is in a place he or she has a legal right to be. He emphasized that this only affects cases where a person is justified. He explained that current Alaska law provides that there is no duty to retreat if a person who is justified in using deadly force in self-defense is on premises they own, lease, reside, or work. If the person is in any other place and knows he or she can retreat from an encounter, the person is legally required to do so. In an encounter that requires a person to use deadly force in self-defense, the person must first consider justification and then retreat. The only time retreat becomes a consideration is when the person has determined he or she is justified in taking action. AS 11.81.335 and AS 11.81.330 build on each other to create the legal requirement for justification, and the bottom line is that a person may only use deadly force in self-defense if the person reasonably believes it is necessary against an imminent threat of death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual assault, and robbery. To employ self-defense a person also must satisfy both subjective and objective standards. The subjective standard is that the person must actually believe that deadly force is necessary. The objective standard is that a reasonable person would have to hold that belief under the circumstances. There are also certain circumstances that specifically do not justify the use of deadly or nondeadly force. These are if a person was engaged in mutual combat; if a person provoked the other person's conduct; if the person using self-defense was the initial aggressor; or if the person was involved in felonious or gang activity. He recapped that a person using deadly force in self-defense must have justification and must consider in a split second whether to respond to an aggressor with force. Removing the question as to whether the person can retreat with complete safety means one less thing a potential victim must consider in what may be a life-or-death, split-second decision. Removing the duty to retreat does not change the fact that a person must have justification. MR. JUDY refuted the argument that the bill promotes violence saying that a person may only use deadly force when they reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent an imminent threat. He said he also believes that the opposition is mischaracterizing the justification statute. Under existing law, a person who resists an aggressor bears the risk of a finding that while the response was proportional to the reasonably perceived threat, the person overestimated the difficulty of getting away safely and is therefore guilty of a crime. He said that removing the retreat provision shifts some of the risk back to the aggressor. Noting that opponents argue that the bill will benefit dangerous criminals, he emphasized that the duty to retreat actually protects persons against whom defense of force would otherwise be justified. He concluded that law-abiding citizens should not fear criminal prosecution when they stand their ground and defend themselves without retreating when they're justified and in a place they have a legal right to be. 2:29:16 PM CHAIR COGHILL noted that Quinlan Steiner was available to answer questions. He highlighted that the committee heard the bill several times in previous years. He said he was satisfied that gunplay between competing groups falls under justification with regard to mutual combat and provocation. 2:30:17 PM SENATOR DYSON commented that it is instructive to read the sections on self-defense in AS 11.81.340 and AS 11.81.350 because they expand on other areas where the use of deadly force is justified. He offered his belief that HB 24 does not affect those sections. 2:32:12 PM SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the committee. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN agreed. He asked to distribute a letter [dated March 28, 2012] to the former Judiciary Committee chair from Attorney General Geraghty who said, "The fact that defendants may attempt to take advantage of the law once it is on the books should not dissuade us from enacting laws that protect a citizen's right to legitimate self-defense outside the home." CHAIR COGHILL said he initially didn't intend to take action on the bill today, but he hadn't heard a lot of other dialog at this point. SENATOR DYSON said there was a lively debate in the other body, and he had given the issue a lot of thought for the past three years so he was comfortable moving the bill along. CHAIR COGHILL said he wanted to make sure that the committee heard about the debate that took place on the floor in the other body. He said he was satisfied and was willing to accept a motion. 2:34:19 PM SENATOR MCGUIRE moved to report CS for HB 24, version \U from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). 2:34:33 PM CHAIR COGHILL announced that without objection CSHB 24(JUD) moved from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.