Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee advances bill allowing deadly force to protect property in narrow circumstances; critics call it dangerous
Summary
House Bill 856, which would allow a person to use deadly force in some property‑protection scenarios and when reasonably necessary to effect a lawful arrest, advanced to full judiciary after debate split largely on urban‑rural lines.
House Bill 856, sponsored by Representative Capley, would add circumstances under which a person is justified in using deadly force to prevent or terminate certain offenses against property, including to protect property or to accomplish a lawful arrest when “reasonably necessary,” according to the sponsor’s explanation to the subcommittee.
The sponsor said the bill is aimed at situations such as looting or thieves taking property when owners fear law enforcement cannot respond swiftly; he described rural examples — barns on fire or equipment being stolen — where residents may feel they have no alternative. The sponsor said the bill is not intended to allow using deadly force against a person selling cookies or in the recovery of a lost dog.
Several members expressed strong concerns. Representative Powell described a hypothetical in which an unarmed neighbor chasing a loose dog could be killed under the bill’s language, and said he would vote no. Representative Salinas warned the bill could be misused to justify deadly force in cases involving mistaken identity or discrimination. Supporters, including Leader Lambert, argued that rural residents sometimes face slow emergency response times and that the bill addresses those practical differences.
After floor debate, the subcommittee voted to send House Bill 856 to full judiciary (ayes: 7, nays: 2).
